Dosimetry of small photon fields in the presence of bone heterogeneity using MAGIC polymer gel, Gafchromic film, and Monte Carlo simulation.
MAGIC polymer gel
Monte Carlo simulation
bone heterogeneity
small field
Journal
Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
ISSN: 1507-1367
Titre abrégé: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 100885761
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
01
12
2021
accepted:
08
02
2022
entrez:
27
10
2022
pubmed:
28
10
2022
medline:
28
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The presence of heterogeneity within the radiation field increases the challenges of small field dosimetry. In this study, the performance of MAGIC polymer gel was evaluated in the dosimetry of small fields beyond bone heterogeneity. Circular field sizes of 5, 10, 20 and 30 mm were used and Polytetrafluoroethylene with density of 2.2 g/cm The maximum differences between MAGIC and EBT2 are 6.1, 4.7, 2.4, and 2.2 for PDD curves at 5, 10, 20, and 30 mm circular fields, respectively. The dose differences and distance to agreement between MAGIC and MC were within 1.89%/0.46 mm, 1.66%/0.43 mm, 1.28%/0.77 mm, and 1.31%/0.81 mm for beam profile values behind bone heterogeneity at 5, 10, 20, and 30 mm field sizes, respectively. The results presented that the MAGIC polymer gel dosimeter is a proper instrument for dosimetry beyond high density heterogeneity.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The presence of heterogeneity within the radiation field increases the challenges of small field dosimetry. In this study, the performance of MAGIC polymer gel was evaluated in the dosimetry of small fields beyond bone heterogeneity.
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
Circular field sizes of 5, 10, 20 and 30 mm were used and Polytetrafluoroethylene with density of 2.2 g/cm
Results
UNASSIGNED
The maximum differences between MAGIC and EBT2 are 6.1, 4.7, 2.4, and 2.2 for PDD curves at 5, 10, 20, and 30 mm circular fields, respectively. The dose differences and distance to agreement between MAGIC and MC were within 1.89%/0.46 mm, 1.66%/0.43 mm, 1.28%/0.77 mm, and 1.31%/0.81 mm for beam profile values behind bone heterogeneity at 5, 10, 20, and 30 mm field sizes, respectively.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
The results presented that the MAGIC polymer gel dosimeter is a proper instrument for dosimetry beyond high density heterogeneity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36299382
doi: 10.5603/RPOR.a2022.0031
pii: rpor-27-2-226
pmc: PMC9591029
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
226-234Informations de copyright
© 2022 Greater Poland Cancer Centre.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Apr 1;88(5):1108-13
pubmed: 24529716
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2017 Apr;6(2):131-147
pubmed: 28529896
Med Phys. 2008 Oct;35(10):4640-8
pubmed: 18975710
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Apr 7;60(7):2939-53
pubmed: 25789823
Med Phys. 1995 Dec;22(12):2117-21
pubmed: 8746721
Med Phys. 2008 Jun;35(6):2259-66
pubmed: 18649456
Med Phys. 2003 Jul;30(7):1706-11
pubmed: 12906187
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012 Jul;150(3):312-5
pubmed: 22128355
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 14;11(3):e0151300
pubmed: 26974434
Phys Med Biol. 2001 Dec;46(12):3105-13
pubmed: 11768494
Med Phys. 2018 Nov;45(11):e1123-e1145
pubmed: 30247757
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Sep;44(9):2183-92
pubmed: 10495113
Med Phys. 2008 Nov;35(11):5179-86
pubmed: 19070252
Med Phys. 2005 Jan;32(1):12-8
pubmed: 15719949
J Med Signals Sens. 2018 Jul-Sep;8(3):195-203
pubmed: 30181968
Med Phys. 2006 May;33(5):1338-45
pubmed: 16752569
Z Med Phys. 2017 Dec;27(4):324-333
pubmed: 28342596
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Mar 7;52(5):1431-9
pubmed: 17301463
Med Phys. 2021 Jun;48(6):3160-3171
pubmed: 33715167