Premium
Multidimensional dosimetry of 106 Ru eye plaques using EBT3 films and its impact on treatment planning
Author(s) -
Heilemann G.,
Nesvacil N.,
Blaickner M.,
Kostiukhi.,
Georg D.
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4929564
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , dosimetry , materials science , nuclear medicine , reproducibility , monte carlo method , radiation treatment planning , brachytherapy , biomedical engineering , optics , physics , radiation therapy , mathematics , medicine , statistics , radiology
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to establish a method to perform multidimensional radiochromic film measurements of 106 Ru plaques and to benchmark the resulting dose distributions against Monte Carlo simulations (MC), microdiamond, and diode measurements. Methods: Absolute dose rates and relative dose distributions in multiple planes were determined for three different plaque models (CCB, CCA, and COB), and three different plaques per model, using EBT3 films in an in‐house developed polystyrene phantom and the mcnp6 MC code. Dose difference maps were generated to analyze interplaque variations for a specific type, and for comparing measurements against MC simulations. Furthermore, dose distributions were validated against values specified by the manufacturer (BEBIG) and microdiamond and diode measurements in a water scanning phantom. Radial profiles were assessed and used to estimate dosimetric margins for a given combination of representative tumor geometry and plaque size. Results: Absolute dose rates at a reference depth of 2 mm on the central axis of the plaque show an agreement better than 5% (10%) when comparing film measurements ( mcnp6 ) to the manufacturer's data. The reproducibility of depth‐dose profile measurements was <7% (2 SD) for all investigated detectors and plaque types. Dose difference maps revealed minor interplaque deviations for a specific plaque type due to inhomogeneities of the active layer. The evaluation of dosimetric margins showed that for a majority of the investigated cases, the tumor was not completely covered by the 100% isodose prescribed to the tumor apex if the difference between geometrical plaque size and tumor base ≤4 mm. Conclusions: EBT3 film dosimetry in an in‐house developed phantom was successfully used to characterize the dosimetric properties of different 106 Ru plaque models. The film measurements were validated against MC calculations and other experimental methods and showed a good agreement with data from BEBIG well within published tolerances. The dosimetric information as well as interplaque comparison can be used for comprehensive quality assurance and for considerations in the treatment planning of ophthalmic brachytherapy.