English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Recently, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is used worldwide, highly accurate verification of the location using image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) has become critical. However, the use of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) to ascertain the location each time raises concerns about its influence on radiotherapy dosage and increased radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to measure the absorbed dose using nine kilovoltage (kV) devices and two megavoltage (MV) devices (total 11 devices) at eight facilities, compare the absorbed dose among the devices, and assess the characteristics of the respective devices to ensure optimal clinical operation. For the measurement of the absorbed dose, a farmer-type ionization chamber dosimeter, calibrated using a 60 Co and an IMRT dose verification phantom manufactured from water-equivalent material RW3, was used to measure the absorbed dose at nine points in the phantom for two regions, the pelvic and cephalic region. The average absorbed dose of the pelvic region was 3.09±0.21 cGy in kV-CBCT (OBI), 1.16±0.16 cGy in kV-CBCT (XVI), 5.64±1.48 cGy in MV-CBCT (4 MV), and 6.33±1.54 cGy in MV-CBCT (6 MV). The average absorbed dose of the cephalic region was 0.38±0.03 cGy in kV-CBCT (OBI), 0.23±0.06 cGy in kV-CBCT (XVI), 4.02±0.72 cGy in MV-CBCT (4 MV), and 4.46±0.77 cGy in MV-CBCT (6 MV). There was a difference in the absorbed dose at the measured points as well as in the dose distribution in the phantom cross section. No major difference was observed in the absorbed dose among identical devices, but a difference was identified among the devices installed at multiple facilities. Therefore, the angle of rotation should be paid attention to when CBCT is taken, and the image-taking conditions should be determined. In addition, it is important to handle the devices only after ascertaining the absorbed dose of each device.

Evaluation of Absorbed Dose for CBCT in Image-guided Radiation Therapy: Comparison of Each Devices and Facilities