A study on slab-wooden dust-slab phantom for the development of thorax phantom

Document Type: Original Paper

Authors

1 PhD Scholar School of Studies in Physics, Vikram University, Ujjain 456010, India

2 Associate Professor School of Studies in Physics Vikram University, Ujjain (M.P.) 456001

3 Professor & Head School of Studies in Physics Vikram University, Ujjain (M.P.) 456001

4 Roentgen-SAIMS Radiation Oncology Centre, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore (MP), India

5 Professor Roentgen-SAIMS Radiation Oncology Centre, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 453111, India virencancer@yahoo.co.in +91-9893115337

6 Professor Roentgen-SAIMS Radiation Oncology Centre, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 453111

7 MD Scholar Roentgen-SAIMS Radiation Oncology Centre, Sri Aurobindo Institute of Medical Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 453111

Abstract

Introduction: The determination of accurate dose distribution is an issue of fundamental importance in radiotherapy, especially with regard to the fact that the human body is a heterogeneous medium. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the density and isodose depth profiles of 6 MV beam in a SP34 slab-wooden dust (pine)-SP34 slab (SWS) heterogeneous phantom.
 Materials and Methods: The density of SP34 slab, wooden dust of pine, and thoracic region of 10 patients were calculated using computed tomography (CT) images. The depths of isodose lines were measured for 6 MV beam on the CT images of the chest, SP34 slab phantom, and SWS phantom. Dose calculation was performed at the depths of 2, 13, and 21 cm in both phantoms. Furthermore, patient-specific quality assurance (QA) was implemented using both phantoms.
Results: The mean densities of the lung, SP34 slabs, and wooden dust were 0.29, 0.99, and 0.27 gm/cc respectively. The mean depths of different isodose lines in the SWS phantom were found to be equivalent to those in actual patients. Furthermore, the percentage variation between the planned and measured doses was higher in the SWS phantom as compared to that in the SP34 phantom. Furthermore, the percentage variation between the planned and measured doses in patient-specific QA was higher in the SWS phantom as compared to that in the SP34 phantom.
Conclusion: As the findings indicated, the density and isodose depth profiles of the SWS phantom were equivalent to those of the actual thoracic region of human.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Attix FH. Introduction to radiological physics and radiation dosimetry. 1st ed. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons; Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany. 1986:142-54.
  2. Broerse JJ, Zoetelief J. Dose inhomogeneities for photons and neutrons near interfaces. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004; 112(4): 509-17.
  3. Ueki N, Matsuo Y, Shibuya K, Nakamura M, Narabayashi M, Sakanaka K, et al. Differences in the dose-volume metrics with heterogeneity correction status and its influence on local control in stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer. J Radiat Res. 2013;54(2):337-43.
  4. Gurjar OP, Mishra SP, Bhandari V, Pathak P, Patel P, Shrivastav G. Radiation dose verification using real tissue phantom in modern radiotherapy techniques. J Med Phys . 2014; 39(1): 44-9.
  5. Chen WZ, Xiao Y, Li J. Impact of dose calculation algorithm on radiation therapy. World J Radiol. 2014; 6(11): 874-80.
  6. Khan FM. The Physics of Radiation Therapy. 5th ed. Baltimore. MD. USA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. 2014; 425-28.
  7. Gray A, Oliver LD, Johnston PN. The accuracy of the pencil beam convolution and anisotropic analytical algorithms in predicting the dose effects due to attenuation from immobilization devices and large air gaps. Med Phys. 2009; 36(7): 3181–91.
  8. Kan MW, Cheung JY, Leung LH, Lau BM, Yu PK. The accuracy of dose calculations by anisotropic analytical algorithms for stereotactic radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(1): 397–413.
  9. Oyewale S. Dose prediction accuracy of collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm in a multi- layer inhomogeneous phantom. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2013; 1(1): 1-16.
  10. Papanikolaou N, Battista J, Mackie T, Kappas C, Boyer A. Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. AAPM Report No 85; Task Group No. 65, 2004.
  11. Fogliata A, Vanetti E, Albers D, Brink C, Clivio A, Knoos T, et al. On the dosimetric behavior of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2007; 52(5): 1363–85.
  12. Ulmer W, Pyyry J, Kaissl W. A 3D photon superposition/ convolution algorithm and its foundation on results of Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(8): 1767–90.
  13. Fippel M, Haryanto F, Dohm O, Nüsslin F, Kriesen S. A virtual photon energy fluence model for Monte Carlo dose calculation. Med Phys. 2003;30(3):301–11.
  14. ICRU Report 83. Prescribing, recording, and reporting photon-beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT). International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. (Bethesda, 2010).
  15. Watson PE, Watson ID, Batt RD. Total body water volumes for adult males and females estimated from simple anthropometric measurements. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980; 33(1): 27-39.
  16. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on absorbed dose to water. IAEA. Vienna; 2000.
  17. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys. 2011; 38(3): 1313-38.
  18. Kleck JH, Smathers JB, Holly FE, Myers LT. Anthropomorphic radiation therapy phantoms: a quantitative assessment of tissue substitutes. Med Phys. 1990; 17(5): 800–6.
  19. Opp D, Nelms BE, Zhang G, Stevens C, and Feygelman V. Validation of measurement-guided 3D VMAT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013; 14(4): 70-84.
  20. Nishio T, Shirato H, Ishikawa M, Miyabe Y, Kito S, Narita Y, et al. Design, development of water tank-type lung phantom and dosimetric verification in institutions participating in a phase I study of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with T2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group trial (JCOG0702). J Radiat Res. 2014; 55(3): 600-7.
  21. Chang J , Suh TS, Lee DS. Development of a deformable lung phantom for the evaluation of deformable registration. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010; 11(1): 281-86.
  22. Gurjar OP, Mutneja A, Bagdare P, Bhandari V, Gupta KL, Goyal H, et al. Comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Orthogonal Portal Imaging (OPI) in implementation of IMRT protocol in Prostate Cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2016; 4(1): 1-6.
  23. Ravikumar B, Lakshminarayana S. Determination of the tissue inhomogeneity correction in high dose rate brachytherapy for iridium‑192 source. J Med Phys. 2012; 37(1): 27‑31.
  24. Robinson D. Inhomogeneity correction and the analytic anisotropic algorithm. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008; 9(2): 112-22.
  25. Rana SB. Dose prediction accuracy of anisotropic analytical algorithm and pencil beam convolution algorithm beyond high density heterogeneity interface. South Asian J Cancer . 2013; 2(1): 26-30.