Premium
TH‐C‐M100E‐02: Optically Stimulated Luminescence of Aluminum Oxide Detectors for Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance
Author(s) -
Danzer J,
Dudney C,
Seibert R,
Robison B,
Harris C,
Ramsey C
Publication year - 2007
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 - 10.1118/1.2761670
Subject(s) - dosimeter , dosimetry , isocenter , imaging phantom , quality assurance , optically stimulated luminescence , nuclear medicine , dose profile , tomotherapy , detector , materials science , medical physics , thermoluminescent dosimeter , radiation therapy , medicine , physics , optics , radiology , external quality assessment , pathology
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment was to: 1) Determine if a commercially available Al 2O 3detector system used for monitoring personnel exposure could be adapted for use as a radiation therapy dosimetry system; and 2) Evaluate the system's performance as an in‐vivo dosimeter and its ability to measure absolute surface dose, isocenter dose, and normal tissues dose in a phantom as part of patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance. Method and Materials: The dosimeters were evaluated for: 1) Signal decay; 2) Field size dependence; 3) Energy dependence; and 4) Angular dependence using the Landauer, InLight MicroStar system. In‐Vivo dosimetry measurements were taken for 22 patients treated on a Varian 21EX. The Landauer system was also tested for its ability to measure absolute dose from helical tomotherapy treatments. Results: The variation between dosimeters was evaluated and found to be ±1.6%. The dosimeters appeared to over‐respond in the first 10 minutes, however, after 10 minutes the chips were within 1 percent of the steady‐state reading. Unlike other detectors, the Al 2 O 3 dosimeters showed no field size, energy, or angular dependence. The agreement between the dosimeters and the calculated doses for the in‐vivo dosimetry patients was 2.2±6.1 cGy or 3.7±2.5%. The dosimeters were also tested for their ability to measure absolute dose inside an IMRT phantom. The agreement between the dosimeters and the calculated doses was 0.1±5.3 cGy or 0.7±6.7%. Conclusion:Al 2O 3dosimeters can be a convenient, inexpensive alternative to TLDs, MOSFETS, and Diodes. The agreement between calculated and measured doses for in‐vivo dosimetry and IMRT QA is comparable to TLDs, MOSFETS, and Diodes. The dosimeters can be quickly read and analyzed after 10 minutes ( to allow time for signal decay ). The dosimeters do not appear to have an energy, field size, or angular dependence. In addition, the detectors can be erased and re‐used.