Intraoperative electron beam intercomparison of 6 sites using mailed thermoluminescence dosimetry: Absolute dose and energy.

PURPOSE: In 2018, the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry subcommittee on IORT initiated a limited intercomparison of electron IORT (IOERT) in Belgium and The Netherlands. The participating institutions have enough variability in age, type of equipment, and in dose calibration protocols. METHODS: In this study, three types of IOERT-dedicated mobile accelerators were represented: Mobetron 2000, LIAC HWL and LIAC. Mobetron produces electron beams with energies of 6, 9 and 12 MeV, while LIAC HWL and LIAC can deliver 6, 8, 10 and 12 MeV electron beams. For all energies, the reference beam (10 cm diameter, 0° incidence) and 5 cm diameter beams were measured, as these smaller beams are used more frequently in clinic. The mailed TLD service from the Radiation Dosimetry Services (RDS, Houston, USA) has been used. Following RDS' standard procedures, each beam was irradiated to 300 cGy at dmax with TLDs around dmax and around depth of 50 % dose (R50). Absolute dose at 100 % and beam energy, expressed as R50, could be verified in this way. RESULTS: All absolute doses and energies under reference conditions were well within RDS-stated uncertainties: dose deviations were <5 % and deviations in R50 were <5 mm. For the small 5 cm beams, all results were also within acceptance levels except one absolute dose value. Deviations were not significantly dependent on manufacturer, energy, diameter and calibration protocol. CONCLUSIONS: All absolute dose values, except one of a non-reference beam, and all energy values were well within the measurement accuracy of RDS TLDs.

In vivo dosimetry with MOSFETs and GAFCHROMIC films during electron IORT for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the delivered dose to the expected intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) dose with in vivo dosimetry. For IORT using electrons in accelerated partial breast irradiation, this is especially relevant since a high dose is delivered in a single fraction. METHODS: For 47 of breast cancer patients, in vivo dosimetry was performed with MOSFETs and/or GAFCHROMIC EBT2 films. A total dose of 23.33 Gy at dmax was given directly after completing the lumpectomy procedure with electron beams generated with an IORT dedicated mobile accelerator. A protection disk was used to shield the thoracic wall. RESULTS: The results of in vivo MOSFET dosimetry for 27 patients and GAFROMIC film dosimetry for 20 patients were analysed. The entry dose for the breast tissue, measured with MOSFETs, (mean value 22.3 Gy, SD 3.4%) agreed within 1.7% with the expected dose (mean value 21.9 Gy). The dose in breast tissue, measured with GAFCHROMIC films (mean value 23.50 Gy) was on average within 0.7% (SD = 3.7%, range -5.5% to 5.6%) of the prescribed dose of 23.33 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: The dose measured with MOSFETs and GAFROMIC EBT2 films agreed well with the expected dose. For both methods, the dose to the thoracic wall, lungs and heart for left sided patents was lower than 2.5 Gy even when 12 MeV was applied. The positioning time of GAFCHROMIC films is negligible and based on our results we recommend its use as a standard tool for patient quality assurance during breast cancer IORT.