Fabrication and Characterization of Beam Quality Phantom for External Beam Radiotherapy

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Physics, School of Engineering and Technology, Karunya Institute of Technology and Science, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu. Dharan Cancer Specialty Center Pvt Ltd, Salem, Tamilnadu, India

2 Department of Physics, School of Engineering and Technology, Karunya Institute of Technology and Science, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

3 Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Medicine, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India. Department of Medical Physics, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore- 641046, Tamilnadu, India.

4 HCG Cancer Hospital - (Mansarovar, Jaipur), India.

5 Department of Medical Physics, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore- 641046, Tamilnadu, India.

6 Department of Medical Physics, PSG IMSR & Hospitals, Coimbatore - Tamil Nadu – India.

Abstract

Introduction: Radiation dose measurement plays a major role in Radiation Dosimetry. Effective dose delivery to the patient is ensured with the recommendation of some protocol called Quality assurance (QA). It is necessary to confirm that the beam that is used for treatment is a good quality beam and it is given by beam quality factor TPR 20/10 which is one of the QA protocols.
Material and Methods: In the present TPR20,10 phantom both depth (20 and 10 cm) doses can be measured at the same procedure without changing any setup. As the reference condition is maintained, the Gelatin-based phantom is kept for irradiation in the Siemens Linear Accelerator (LINAC) machine. Initially Source Axis Distance (SAD) of 100 cm from the surface and 10×10 cm2 of field size. The measurement is taken by ion chamber at 10 and 20 cm depth in gantry angles 90° and 270° And the ratio of these values is taken and compared with the measurements of the water-based TPR phantom.
Results: The values for the TPR20,10 ratio for the Gelatin and water phantom are measured using the above method and the values are tabulated and compared. Likewise, the output measurements are done and tabulated for comparison. These measurements are carried out for several days to check the repeatability, and reproducibility of the phantom. Also, the measured set of values was analyzed using mean, median, standard deviation, etc.   
Conclusion: The fabricated phantom had good outcomes in its response. And the result projects that the phantom can be a better alternative for the other phantom materials and gelatin has more advantages over water, we conclude that gel can be used for better dosimetric procedures.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Podgorsak EB. Review of radiation oncology physics: a handbook for teachers and students. Vienna, Austria: IAE Agency. 2003 May 1; 19:133.
  2. DK B. Central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol Suppl. 1983; 17:1-47.
  3. Musolino SV. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water; technical reports series No. 398.
  4. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, et al. AAPM's TG‐51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high‐energy photon and electron beams. Medical physics. 1999 Sep;26(9):1847-70.
  5. Pychlau P, Schule E. The exposure rate of a radioactive check device. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1986 Nov 1;31(11):1291.
  6. Christ G. White polystyrene as a substitute for water in high energy photon dosimetry. Medical Physics. 1995 Dec;22(12):2097-100.
  7. Alam MJ, Rabbani KS, Zakaria GA, Hussain SA, Kiber A, Baig T. A modified formula for defining tissue phantom ratio of photon beams. Bangladesh Medical Research Council Bulletin. 2007;33(3):92-7.
  8. Thwaites D. Use of computers in external beam radiotherapy procedures with high-energy photons and electrons, in: ICRU Report 42, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, London (1987), p. 70, ISBN: 0-913394-36-X.
  9. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements; 1989.
  10. Van Dyk J, Rosenwald JC, Fraass B, Cramb J, Ionescu-Farca F, Sharpe MB. IAEA Technical Reports Series No. 430: Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. Medical Physics. 2006 Feb 15;33(2).
  11. Ceberg C, Johnsson S, Lind M, Knöös T. Prediction of stopping‐power ratios in flattening‐filter free beams. Medical physics. 2010 Mar;37(3):1164-8.
  12. Kawrakow I. The EGSnrc code system, Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. NRCC Report Pirs-701. 2001.
  13. Rogers DW, Faddegon BA, Ding GX, Ma CM, We J, Mackie TR. BEAM: a Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units. Medical physics. 1995 May;22(5):503-24.
  14. Walters BR, Kawrakow I, Rogers DW. DOSXYZnrc User’s Manual. NRCC Report PIRS-794revB. 2023.
  15. Constantin M, Perl J, LoSasso T, Salop A, Whittum D, Narula A, Svatos M, Keall PJ. Modeling the TrueBeam linac using a CAD to Geant4 geometry implementation: dose and IAEA‐compliant phase space calculations. Medical physics. 2011 Jul;38(7):4018-24.
  16. Tonkopi E, McEwen MR, Walters BR, Kawrakow I. Influence of ion chamber response on in‐air profile measurements in megavoltage photon beams. Medical physics. 2005 Sep;32(9):2918-27.
  17. McEwen MR, Kawrakow I, Ross CK. The effective point of measurement of ionization chambers and the build‐up anomaly in MV X‐ray beams. Medical physics. 2008 Mar;35(3):950-8.
  18. Rogers DW, Yang CL. Corrected relationship between and stopping‐power ratios. Medical Physics. 1999 Apr;26(4):538-40.
  19. Kalach NI, Rogers DW. Which accelerator photon beams are “clinic‐like” for reference dosimetry purposes. Medical physics. 2003 Jul;30(7):1546-55.
  20. Titt U, Vassiliev ON, Pönisch F, Dong L, Liu H, Mohan R. A flattening filter free photon treatment concept evaluation with Monte Carlo. Medical physics. 2006 Jun;33(6Part1):1595-602.
  21. Cashmore J. The characterization of unflattened photon beams from a 6 MV linear accelerator. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2008 Mar 11;53(7): 1933.
  22. Thomas SJ, Aspradakis MM, Byrne JP, Chalmers G, Duane S, Rogers J, et al. Reference dosimetry on TomoTherapy: an addendum to the 1990 UK MV dosimetry code of practice. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2014 Feb 28;59(6):1339.
  23. Sauer OA. Determination of the quality index for photon beams at arbitrary field sizes. Medical physics. 2009 Sep;36(9Part1):4168-72.
  24. Palmans H. Determination of the beam quality index of high‐energy photon beams under nonstandard reference conditions. Medical physics. 2012 Sep;39(9):5513-9.
  25. BIR British Institute of Radiology. Central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. Brit J Radiol Suppl, 25: London. 1996.
  26. Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Nath R, et al. AAPM's TG‐51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high‐energy photon and electron beams. Medical physics. 1999 Sep;26(9):1847-70.
  27. Deutsches Institut für Normung. Dosismessverfahren nach der Sondenmethode für Photonen‐und Elektronenstrahlung, Teil 2: Ionisationsdosimetrie. 1998.
  28. Lillicrap SC, Owen B, Williams JR, Williams PC. Code of practice for high-energy photon therapy dosimetry based on the NPL absorbed dose calibration service. Physics in Medicine and Biology;(UK). 1990 Oct 1;35(10).
  29. The Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS). Code of Practice for the Absorbed Dose Determination in High Energy Photon and Electron Beams. In NCS Report No. 18; The Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry: Delft, The Netherlands. 2008.
  30. Musolino SV. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water; technical reports series No. 398. 2001.
  31. Alipal J, Pu'Ad NM, Lee TC, Nayan NH, Sahari N, Basri H, et al. A review of gelatin: Properties, sources, process, applications, and commercialisation. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021 Jan 1;42:240-50.
  32. Pearce JA, Bass GA. Determination of beam quality index, TPR20/10, on the NPL Elekta linac. 2010.
  33. Howitz S, Schwedas M, Wiezorek T, Zink K. Experimental and Monte Carlo-based determination of the beam quality specifier for TomoTherapyHD treatment units. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Physik. 2018 Apr 1;28(2):142-9.

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 21, Issue 2
March and April 2024
Pages 93-101

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 20 July 2019
  • Revise Date: 27 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 19 October 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics