RESUMEN
In the present study, bone samples from three patients treated in radiotherapy facilities in Poland were used for the determination of doses absorbed during radiotherapy. The samples were obtained during surgical treatments of patients performed due to medical indications. For the purpose of retrospective dosimetry, sensitivity of the radiation-induced EPR signal was individually calibrated in the samples by re-irradiation of the samples with known doses. The doses reconstructed in bones extracted within 6 months after irradiation were consistent with those calculated by treatment planning systems. The dose reconstructed in the bone removed 6 y after radiotherapy was â¼14% lower than the calculated one.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Óseas/radioterapia , Huesos/efectos de la radiación , Espectroscopía de Resonancia por Spin del Electrón/métodos , Radiometría/métodos , Neoplasias Óseas/secundario , Humanos , Neoplasias de los Labios/patología , Neoplasias de los Labios/radioterapia , Neoplasias de la Boca/patología , Neoplasias de la Boca/radioterapia , Dosificación RadioterapéuticaRESUMEN
This paper presents the results of an interlaboratory comparison of retrospective dosimetry using the electron paramagnetic resonance method. The test material used in this exercise was glass coming from the touch screens of smart phones that might be used as fortuitous dosimeters in a large-scale radiological incident. There were 13 participants to whom samples were dispatched, and 11 laboratories reported results. The participants received five calibration samples (0, 0.8, 2, 4, and 10 Gy) and four blindly irradiated samples (0, 0.9, 1.3, and 3.3 Gy). Participants were divided into two groups: for group A (formed by three participants), samples came from a homogeneous batch of glass and were stored in similar setting; for group B (formed by eight participants), samples came from different smart phones and stored in different settings of light and temperature. The calibration curves determined by the participants of group A had a small error and a critical level in the 0.37-0.40-Gy dose range, whereas the curves determined by the participants of group B were more scattered and led to a critical level in the 1.3-3.2-Gy dose range for six participants out of eight. Group A were able to assess the dose within 20 % for the lowest doses (<1.5 Gy) and within 5 % for the highest doses. For group B, only the highest blind dose could be evaluated in a reliable way because of the high critical values involved. The results from group A are encouraging, whereas the results from group B suggest that the influence of environmental conditions and the intervariability of samples coming from different smart phones need to be further investigated. An alongside conclusion is that the protocol was easily transferred to participants making a network of laboratories in case of a mass casualty event potentially feasible.