RESUMEN
The purpose of this report is to provide detailed guidance on the dosimetry of the INTRABEAM® (Carl Zeiss Medical AG, Jena, Germany) electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system as it stands at the present time. This report has been developed by the members of American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 292 and endorsed by the AAPM. Members of AAPM Task Group 292 on Electronic-Brachytherapy Dosimetry have reviewed pertinent publications and user manuals regarding the INTRABEAM system dosimetry and manufacturer-supplied dose calculation protocols. Formal written correspondence with Zeiss has also provided further clarification. Dose-rate calculations for the INTRABEAM system are highly dependent on choice of dosimetry protocol. Even with careful protocol selection, large uncertainties remain due to the incomplete characterization of the ionization chambers used for verification with respect to their energy dependence as well as manufacturing variations. There are two distinct sets of dose-rate data provided by Zeiss for the INTRABEAM system. One dataset (Calibration V4.0) is representative of the physical dose surrounding the source and the other dataset (TARGIT) has been adjusted to be consistent with a clinical trial named TARGIT (TARGeted Intraoperative RadioTherapy). The adjusted TARGIT doses are quite dissimilar to the physical doses, with differences ranging from 14% to 30% at the surface of a spherical applicator, depending on its diameter, and up to a factor of two at closer distances with the smaller needle applicators. In addition, ion chamber selection and associated manufacturing tolerances contribute to significant additional uncertainties. With these substantial differences in dose rates and their associated uncertainties, it is important for users to be aware of how each value is calculated and whether it is appropriate to be used for the intended treatment. If users intend to deliver doses that are the same as they were in 1998 at the onset of the TARGIT trial, then the TARGIT dose-rate tables should be used. The Calibration V4.0 dose rates may be more appropriate to use for applications other than TARGIT trial treatments, since they more closely represent the physical doses being delivered. Users should also be aware of the substantial uncertainties associated with the provided dose rates, which are due to beam hardening, chamber geometry, and selection of the point-of-measurement for a given ionization chamber. This report serves to describe the details and implications of the manufacturer-recommended dosimetry formalism for users of the INTRABEAM system.
Asunto(s)
Braquiterapia , Calibración , Electrónica , Alemania , Radiometría , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While the review of radiotherapy treatment plans and charts by a medical physicist is a key component of safe, high-quality care, very few specific recommendations currently exist for this task. AIMS: The goal of TG-275 is to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations on physics plan and chart review for radiation therapy. While this report is aimed mainly at medical physicists, others may benefit including dosimetrists, radiation therapists, physicians and other professionals interested in quality management. METHODS: The scope of the report includes photon/electron external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), proton radiotherapy, as well as high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for gynecological applications (currently the highest volume brachytherapy service in most practices). The following review time points are considered: initial review prior to treatment, weekly review, and end-of-treatment review. The Task Group takes a risk-informed approach to developing recommendations. A failure mode and effects analysis was performed to determine the highest-risk aspects of each process. In the case of photon/electron EBRT, a survey of all American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) members was also conducted to determine current practices. A draft of this report was provided to the full AAPM membership for comment through a 3-week open-comment period, and the report was revised in response to these comments. RESULTS: The highest-risk failure modes included 112 failure modes in photon/electron EBRT initial review, 55 in weekly and end-of-treatment review, 24 for initial review specific to proton therapy, and 48 in HDR brachytherapy. A 103-question survey on current practices was released to all AAPM members who self-reported as working in the radiation oncology field. The response rate was 33%. The survey data and risk data were used to inform recommendations. DISCUSSION: Tables of recommended checks are presented and recommendations for best practice are discussed. Suggestions to software vendors are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: TG-275 provides specific recommendations for physics plan and chart review which should enhance the safety and quality of care for patients receiving radiation treatments.
Asunto(s)
Braquiterapia , Oncología por Radiación , Humanos , Fotones , Física , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To develop a volumetric arc therapy (VMAT)-total marrow irradiation (TMI) technique for patients with hematologic malignancies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: VMAT planning was performed for 6 patients using RapidArc technology. The planning target volume consisted of all the bones in the body from the head to the mid-femur, excluding the extremities, except for the humerus, plus a 3.0-mm margin. The organs at risk included the lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, bowels, brain, eyes, and oral cavity. The VMAT-TMI technique consisted of three plans: the head and neck, the chest, and the pelvis, each with three 330° arcs. The plans were prescribed to ensure, at a minimum, 95% planning target volume dose coverage with the prescription dose (percentage of volume receiving dose of ≥12 Gy was 95%). The treatments were delivered and verified using MapCheck and ion chamber measurements. RESULTS: The VMAT-TMI technique reported in the present study provided comparable dose distributions with respect to the fixed gantry linear accelerator intensity-modulated TMI. RapidArc planning was less subjective and easier, and, most importantly, the delivery was more efficient. RapidArc reduced the treatment delivery time to approximately 18 min from 45 min with the fixed gantry linear accelerator intensity-modulated TMI. When the prescription dose coverage was reduced to 85% from 95% and the mandible and maxillary structures were not included in the planning target volume as reported in a tomotherapy study, a considerable organ at risk dose reduction of 4.2-51% was observed. The average median dose for the lungs and lenses was reduced to 5.6 Gy from 7.2 Gy and 2.4 Gy from 4.5 Gy, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RapidArc VMAT technique improved the treatment planning, dose conformality, and, most importantly, treatment delivery efficiency. The results from our study suggest that the RapidArc VMAT technology can be expected to facilitate the clinical transition of TMI.
Asunto(s)
Médula Ósea/efectos de la radiación , Enfermedades Hematológicas/radioterapia , Órganos en Riesgo , Planificación de la Radioterapia Asistida por Computador/métodos , Radioterapia de Intensidad Modulada/métodos , Irradiación Corporal Total/métodos , Algoritmos , Humanos , Órganos en Riesgo/efectos de la radiación , Dosificación RadioterapéuticaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To analyze the long-term stability of Farmer-type cylindrical ionization chambers by calibration factor provided from the KFDA (Korea Food Drug Administration) MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cylindrical ionization chambers used in this study were the PTW 30001 (30006), 30013, 30002, 30004, 23333, the Capintec PR06C, the NE 2571, the Exradin A12 and the Wellhofer FC65G (IC70). We were analyzed that the N(k) and N(D,W) calibration factor for the cylindrical chambers and compared between the measured N(D,W) and calculated N(D,W) calibration factor. RESULTS: We have observed that the long-term stability of the PTW 30013 (30006), the Wellhofer FC65G (IC70) and the NE 2571 has varied within 0.2%. The measured N(D,W) calibration factor was about 1.0% higher than the calculated N(D,W) that determined by the N(k) calibration factor. CONCLUSION: The study has evaluated that the long-term stability of the cylindrical chambers through analysis for the Nk and N(D,W) calibration factor. It has contributed to the improvement of clinical electron dosimetry in radiotherapy centers.
Asunto(s)
Calibración , RadioterapiaRESUMEN
The purpose of this study has been performed to investigate the possibility of external audit program using thermoluminescence dosimetry for electron beam in korea. The TLD system consists of LiF powder, type TLD-700 read with a PCL 3 reader. In order to determine a calibration coefficient of the TLD system, the reference dosimeters are irradiated to 2 Gy in a (60)Co beam at the KFDA The irradiation is performed under reference conditions is water phantom using the IAEA standard holder for TLD of electron beam. The energy correction factor is determined for LiF powder irradiated of dose to water 2 Gy in electron beams of 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 MeV (Varian CL 2100C). The dose is determined according to the IAEA TRS-398 and by measurement with a PTW Roos type plane-parallel chamber. The TLD for each electron energy are positioned in water at reference depth. In this study, to verify of the accuracy of dose determination by the TLD system are performed through a 'blind' TLD irradiation. The results of blind test are 2.98%, 3.39% and 0.01% (1sigma) at 9, 16, 20 MeV, respectively. The value generally agrees within the acceptance level of 5% for electron beam. The results of this study prove the possibility of the TLD quality assurance program for electron beams. It has contributed to the improvement of clinical electron dosimetry in radiotherapy centers.