D-IMRT verification with a 2D pixel ionization chamber: dosimetric and clinical results in head and neck cancer.

Dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (D-IMRT) using the sliding-window technique is currently applied for selected treatments of head and neck cancer at Institute for Cancer Research and Treatment of Candiolo (Turin, Italy). In the present work, a PiXel-segmented ionization Chamber (PXC) has been used for the verification of 19 fields used for four different head and neck cancers. The device consists of a 32x32 matrix of 1024 parallel-plate ionization chambers arranged in a square of 24x24 cm2 area. Each chamber has 0.4 cm diameter and 0.55 cm height; a distance of 0.75 cm separates the centre of adjacent chambers. The sensitive volume of each single ionization chamber is 0.07 cm3. Each of the 1024 independent ionization chambers is read out with a custom microelectronics chip.The output factors in water obtained with the PXC at a depth of 10 cm were compared to other detectors and the maximum difference was 1.9% for field sizes down to 3x3 cm2. Beam profiles for different field dimensions were measured with the PXC and two other types of ionization chambers; the maximum distance to agreement (DTA) in the 20-80% penumbra region of a 3x3 cm2 field was 0.09 cm. The leaf speed of the multileaf collimator was varied between 0.07 and 2 cm s-1 and the detector response was constant to better than 0.6%. The behaviour of the PXC was measured while varying the dose rate between 0.21 and 1.21 Gy min-1; the mean difference was 0.50% and the maximum difference was 0.96%. Using fields obtained with an enhanced dynamic wedge and a staircase-like (step) IMRT field, the PXC has been tested for simple 1D modulated beams; comparison with film gave a maximum DTA of 0.12 cm. The PXC was then used to check four different IMRT plans for head and neck cancer treatment: cervical chordoma, parotid, ethmoid and skull base. In the comparison of the PXC versus film and PXC versus treatment planning system, the number of pixels with gamma parameter

External audits of electron beams using mailed TLD dosimetry: preliminary results.

AIM: A feasibility study has been performed to investigate the possibility of using mailed thermoluminescence dosimetry (TLD) for external audits of clinical electron beams in Europe. METHODS: In the frame of the EC Network Project for Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy, instruction sheets and mailing procedures have been defined for mailed TLD dosimetry using the dedicated holder developed by a panel of experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Three hundred and thirty electron beam set-ups have been checked in the reference centres and some local centres of the EC Network Project and in addition through the centres participating to the EORTC Radiotherapy Group trial 22922. RESULTS: The mean ratio of measured dose to stated dose is 0.2% and the standard deviation of measured dose to stated dose is 3.2%. In seven beam set-ups, deviations greater than 10% were observed (max. 66%), showing the usefulness of these checks. CONCLUSION: The results of this feasibility study (instruction sheets, mailing procedures, holder) are presently endorsed by the EQUAL-ESTRO structure in order to offer in the future to all ESTRO members the possibility to request external audits of clinical electron beams.

A comparative description of three multipurpose phantoms (MPP) for external audits of photon beams in radiotherapy: the water MPP, the Umeå MPP and the EC MPP.

AIM: To present a technical description and intercomparison of three multipurpose phantoms (MPP) developed for mailed dosimetry checks of therapeutic photon beams in reference and non-reference conditions. MATERIALS: The W-MPP is a water MPP, whereas the Umeâ-MPP, made of perspex (PMMA, Plexiglas), and the EC-MPP, made of polystyrene, are solid MPPs. The W-MPP uses only thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) for dosimetry checks, the EC MPP uses film and TLD; the Umeâ phantom uses film and TLD, and offers in addition the possibility for ionization chamber measurements. Either using TLD or films, the MPPs have been designed to check on-axis and off-axis the following irradiation conditions: square and rectangular fields, asymmetric fields, wedged beams, oblique incidence and, for the solid MPPs, also the influence of inhomogeneities. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The MPPs have been compared for different aspects going from their dosimetric performance (number of dosimetric parameters that can be checked) to some practical consideration in the use of the different MPPs (set-up time, stability, instruction sheets, etc.). From a comparison between the solid multi-purpose phantoms, it turns out that the EC-MPP is capable of checking the largest number of dosimetric parameters per beam, but has the longest set-up time ( approximately 2 h) per beam according to the users. The Umeå-MPP has a smaller number of set-ups (hence a smaller average time) and also includes some parameters not checked with the EC-MPP (e.g. SSD accuracy). The major drawback however of the Umeå-MPP is considered to be its high density (>1.1 g/cm(3)) which increases the difficulty of the analysis with the treatment planning system. The W-MPP checks the smallest number of parameters, but is the fastest in set-up time, the easiest for mailing, and is water equivalent, which is advantageous for the TPS checks. The major drawback of this MPP is however the inability to check complete dose distribution (film) or inhomogeneities.

External audit of photon beams by mailed film dosimetry: feasibility study.

A feasibility study for mailed film dosimetry has been performed. The global reproducibility of the method is better than 2%. It is shown that the normalized sensitometric curve does not depend on photon beam quality in the range from Co-60 gamma-rays to 18 MV x-rays, although the dose per optical density decreases when the energy increases. The fading of the latent image before film processing is only 3% per month and the normalized sensitometric curve is not modified after a period of 51 days between irradiation and processing. Sets of films were mailed to three different institutes for irradiation and returned for processing and evaluation after more than two months in order to verify that mailing of irradiated and unprocessed films does not produce unwanted artefacts. Finally the feasibility of external audits with mailed film dosimetry is illustrated by comparison of beam profiles measured with films and ionization chambers in a polystyrene phantom.