Open AccessAnthropomorphic breast phantoms for quality assurance and dose verification
Author(s) -
Bencomo José A.,
Chu Connel,
Tello Victor M.,
Cho Sang Hyun,
Ibbott Geoffrey S.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1120/jacmp.v5i1.1992
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , quality assurance , thermoluminescent dosimeter , ionization chamber , dosimeter , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , dose profile , radiation treatment planning , brachytherapy , medicine , medical physics , materials science , biomedical engineering , radiation therapy , physics , radiology , ion , external quality assessment , pathology , quantum mechanics , ionization
An evaluation of two anthropomorphic breast phantoms, which have been designed for quality assurance and dose verification of radiotherapy treatment of breast cancer patients, is presented. These phantoms are identical in terms of their dimensions and shape and composed of several layers of either Plastic Water™ or tissue‐equivalent material. Both water‐and tissue‐equivalent phantoms include lung‐ and rib‐equivalent components. The phantoms simulate large, medium and small breasts. The value of the phantoms as breast treatment quality assurance tools was assessed by dose measurements with ionization chamber and thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD) at different points inside the phantom. Measurements were made by irradiating the phantoms under conditions representing the different treatment techniques found by the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) during its dosimetry quality audits. Most irradiations were performed with the water‐equivalent breast phantom. One experiment was performed under consistent irradiation conditions to compare the tissue‐equivalent phantom with the water‐equivalent phantom. Measurements were compared with the dose estimated by the RPC's manual calculations used to check clinical charts of patients entered in a National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) protocol. Measurements were also compared with isodose distributions generated by a commercial radiation treatment planning (RTP) system. In the homogeneous three‐dimensional (3‐D) phantom, fairly good agreement (within 5%) was observed at the NSABP dose prescription point between measurements and 2‐D dose estimation by manual calculations. At the same dose prescription point, but located in the heterogeneous 3‐D phantom, agreement between measurements and a 3‐D RTP system was within about 3%. Manual calculation resulted in overestimation of up to 6%. The general agreement between the TLD measurements and the 2‐D RTP values was within 3% at various off‐axis points, with the exception of a few points far off‐axis, near the high‐dose gradient region at the surface of the phantom. PACS number(s): 87.53Dq, 87.66Xa, 87.53Xd