Premium
SU‐E‐T‐744: Dose Distribution of a Hip Prosthesis Phantom in Photon Beams
Author(s) -
Hwang T,
Kang S,
Park S,
Cheong K,
Lee M,
Kim K,
Oh D,
Bae H,
Suh T
Publication year - 2011
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 - 10.1118/1.3612708
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , prosthesis , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , irradiation , dose profile , percentage depth dose curve , ionization chamber , materials science , biomedical engineering , medicine , physics , surgery , nuclear physics , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization
Purpose: A hip prosthesis phantom was used to investigate the two‐dimensional dose distribution below the hip prosthesis irradiated by photon beams and to compare measured dose distribution with calculated one. Methods: A hip prosthesis phantom included in paraffin was home‐made, which was embedded in an acrylic material. The hip prosthesis consisted of Co‐Cr‐Mo alloys. With 4cm‐thickness build‐up solid water phantom both 6MV and 10MV photon beam of field size 20×20cm were irradiated on the hip prosthesis phantom. We measured two‐dimensional dose distributions with a two‐dimensional ion chamber array IˈmRT MatriXX (IBA dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany), which were compared with commercial treatment planning system Pinnacle3 (Phillips, Madison, WI). In our study, CT numbers from metal artifacts were corrected using the density override option in the Pinnacle3. Results: The dose distribution just behind the prosthesis was severely underestimated in the Pinnacle3. The dose discrepancy between measured and calculated dose was more significant for higher energy. For 1 0MV, there were dose discrepancies over 20% around the prosthesis, while for 6MV below 20%. Conclusions: In the clinical aspect there must be more careful considerations on the calculated dose for patients with hip prosthesis irradiated by photon beam.