Effects of shielding on pelvic and abdominal IORT dose distributions.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of shielding elements in the proximity of Intra-Operative Radiation Therapy (IORT) irradiation fields, and to generate graphical and quantitative information to assist radiation oncologists in the design of optimal shielding during pelvic and abdominal IORT. METHOD: An IORT system was modeled with BEAMnrc and EGS++ Monte Carlo codes. The model was validated in reference conditions by gamma index analysis against an experimental data set of different beam energies, applicator diameters, and bevel angles. The reliability of the IORT model was further tested considering shielding layers inserted in the radiation beam. Further simulations were performed introducing a bone-like layer embedded in the water phantom. The dose distributions were calculated as 3D dose maps. RESULTS: The analysis of the resulting 2D dose maps parallel to the clinical axis shows that the bevel angle of the applicator and its position relative to the shielding have a major influence on the dose distribution. When insufficient shielding is used, a hotspot nearby the shield appears near the surface. At greater depths, lateral scatter limits the dose reduction attainable with shielding, although the presence of bone-like structures in the phantom reduces the impact of this effect. CONCLUSIONS: Dose distributions in shielded IORT procedures are affected by distinct contributions when considering the regions near the shielding and deeper in tissue: insufficient shielding may lead to residual dose and hotspots, and the scattering effects may enlarge the beam in depth. These effects must be carefully considered when planning an IORT treatment with shielding.

Quality assurance and quality control in mammography: a review of available guidance worldwide.

OBJECTIVES: Review available guidance for quality assurance (QA) in mammography and discuss its contribution to harmonise practices worldwide. METHODS: Literature search was performed on different sources to identify guidance documents for QA in mammography available worldwide in international bodies, healthcare providers, professional/scientific associations. The guidance documents identified were reviewed and a selection was compared for type of guidance (clinical/technical), technology and proposed QA methodologies focusing on dose and image quality (IQ) performance assessment. RESULTS: Fourteen protocols (targeted at conventional and digital mammography) were reviewed. All included recommendations for testing acquisition, processing and display systems associated with mammographic equipment. All guidance reviewed highlighted the importance of dose assessment and testing the Automatic Exposure Control (AEC) system. Recommended tests for assessment of IQ showed variations in the proposed methodologies. Recommended testing focused on assessment of low-contrast detection, spatial resolution and noise. QC of image display is recommended following the American Association of Physicists in Medicine guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The existing QA guidance for mammography is derived from key documents (American College of Radiology and European Union guidelines) and proposes similar tests despite the variations in detail and methodologies. Studies reported on QA data should provide detail on experimental technique to allow robust data comparison. Countries aiming to implement a mammography/QA program may select/prioritise the tests depending on available technology and resources. MAIN MESSAGES: •An effective QA program should be practical to implement in a clinical setting. •QA should address the various stages of the imaging chain: acquisition, processing and display. •AEC system QC testing is simple to implement and provides information on equipment performance.