Premium
In vivo dosimetry by an aSi‐based EPID
Author(s) -
Piermattei Angelo,
Fidanzio Andrea,
Stimato Gerardina,
Azario Luigi,
Grimaldi Luca,
D'Onofrio Guido,
Cilla Savino,
Balducci Mario,
Gambacorta Maria Antonietta,
Di Napoli Nicola,
Cellini Numa
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2360014
Subject(s) - isocenter , imaging phantom , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , ionization chamber , dose profile , monitor unit , radiation treatment planning , percentage depth dose curve , detector , in vivo , radiation therapy , optics , biomedical engineering , materials science , physics , medicine , radiology , microbiology and biotechnology , biology , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization
A method for the in vivo determination of the isocenter dose, D iso , and mid‐plane dose, D m , using the transmitted signal S t measured by 25 central pixels of an aSi‐based EPID is here reported. The method has been applied to check the conformal radiotherapy of pelvic tumors and supplies accurate in vivo dosimetry avoiding many of the disadvantages associated with the use of two diode detectors (at the entrance and exit of the patient) as their periodic recalibration and their positioning. Irradiating water‐equivalent phantoms of different thicknesses, a set of correlation functions F ( w , l )were obtained by the ratio between S t and D m as a function of the phantom thickness, w , for a different field width, l . For the in vivo determination of D iso and D m values, the water‐equivalent thickness of the patients (along the beam central axis) was evaluated by means of the treatment planning system that uses CT scans calibrated in terms of the electron densities. The D iso and D m values experimentally determined were compared with the stated doses D iso , TPSand D m , TPS , determined by the treatment planning system for ten pelvic treatments. In particular, for each treatment four fields were checked in six fractions. In these conditions the agreement between the in vivo dosimetry and stated doses at the isocenter point were within 3%. Comparing the 480 dose values obtained in this work with those obtained for 30 patients tested with a similar method, which made use of a small ion‐chamber positioned on the EPIDs to obtain the transmitted signal, a similar agreement was observed. The method here proposed is very practical and can be applied in every treatment fraction, supplying useful information about eventual patient dose variations due to the incorrect application of the quality assurance program based on the check of patient setup, machine setting, and calculations.