Premium
SU‐F‐T‐379: Dosimetric Impacts of Topical Agents and Dressings On Skin in Radiotherapy
Author(s) -
Tse K,
Morley L,
Cashell A,
Sperduti A,
McQuestion M,
Chow J
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4956564
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , medicine , dosimeter , nuclear medicine , truebeam , dosimetry , bolus (digestion) , materials science , biomedical engineering , linear particle accelerator , surgery , beam (structure) , optics , physics
Purpose: This study investigated the superficial dose enhancement in the application of topical agents, clinical materials (thermal mask and bolus) and dressings in megavoltage photon beam radiotherapy. Different topical skin agents, clinical materials and dressings were evaluated and compared for their skin dosimetric impacts on the patients during radiation treatment. Methods: Superficial dose enhancements, or percentage doses with and without the studying materials, were measured using the 6 MV (Field size = 10×10 cm 2 ) photon beams produced by a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. Twelve topical agents, five dressings (dry and wet conditions) and three clinical materials were studied. A solid water phantom was used with a MOSFET dose detector (TN‐1002RD, Thomson and Nielsen Electronic, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) located under a 1‐mm PMMA slab to measure the skin dose. The distance between the radiation source and phantom surface was set to 100 cm in all measurements. The topical agents were distributed evenly with 1.5 mm thickness using our specific sample holder on the phantom surface. Extrapolations were made of 0.5 mm thickness for the agents to provide meaningful clinical value. Results: By comparing surface doses without studying materials, it is found that no topical agents had superficial dose enhancement higher than the clinical materials namely, thermoplastic mask (128%), 5‐mm Superflab™ bolus (158%) and 10‐mm Superflab™ bolus (171%) regarding the same thickness. Superficial dose enhancement of dry dressing did not exceed 110.5%, while wet dressings produced higher dose enhancements (133% for wet Mepilex lite and 141% for wet Mepilex Ag transfer). Conclusion: It is concluded that the evaluated topical agents and dry dressings did not increase the superficial dose to a concerning level, even using excessive thickness in every fraction of radiation treatment. Wet dressings were found producing the bolus effect, but was still substantially less than applying a thin 5‐mm bolus.