Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 18, Number 2, 2013

Pretreatment verification of dose calculation and delivery by means of measurements with PLEXITOM™ phantom

Paweł Wołowiec, Paweł Kukołowicz, Krzysztof Lis

Summary:

Aim

To validate a pretreatment verification method of dose calculation and dose delivery based on measurements with Metaplex PTW phantom.

Background

The dose-response relationships for local tumor control and radiosensitive tissue complications are strong. It is widely accepted that an accuracy of dose delivery of about 3.5% (one standard deviation) is required in modern radiotherapy. This goal is difficult to achieve. This paper describes our experience with the control of dose delivery and calculations at the ICRU reference point.

Materials and methods

The calculations of dose at the ICRU reference point performed with the treatment planning system CMS XiO were checked by measurements carried out in the PLEXITOM™ phantom.

All measurements were performed with the ion chamber positioned in the phantom, at the central axis of the beam, at depth equivalent to the radiological depth (at gantry zero position). The source-to-phantom surface distance was always set to keep the source-to-detector distance equal to the reference point depth defined in the ICRU Report 50 (generally, 100 cm). The dose was measured according to IAEA TRS 398 report for measurements in solid phantoms. The measurement results were corrected with the actual accelerator's output factor and for the non-full scatter conditions. Measurements were made for 111 patients and 327 fields.

Results

The average differences between measurements and calculations were 0.03% (SD = 1.4%), 0.3% (SD = 1.0%), 0.1% (SD = 1.1%), 0.6% (SD = 1.8%), 0.3% (SD = 1.5%) for all measurements, for total dose, for pelvis, thorax and H&N patients, respectively. Only in 15 cases (4.6%), the difference between the measured and the calculated dose was greater than 3%. For these fields, a detailed analysis was undertaken.

Conclusion

The verification method provides an instantaneous verification of dose calculations before the beginning of a patient's treatment. It allows to detect differences smaller than 3.5%.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2013; 18(2) : 95-100


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2