Nozomu Nagasue

Validation of fluence-based 3D IMRT dose reconstruction on a heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantom using Monte Carlo simulation

In this study, we evaluated the performance of a three‐dimensional (3D) dose verification system, COMPASS version 3, which has a dedicated beam models and dose calculation engine. It was possible to reconstruct the 3D dose distributions in patient anatomy based on the measured fluence using the MatriXX 2D array. The COMPASS system was compared with Monte Carlo simulation (MC), glass rod dosimeter (GRD), and 3DVH, using an anthropomorphic phantom for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification in clinical neck cases. The GRD measurements agreed with the MC within 5% at most measurement points. In addition, most points for COMPASS and 3DVH also agreed with the MC within 5%. The COMPASS system showed better results than 3DVH for dose profiles due to individual adjustments, such as beam modeling for each linac. Regarding the dose‐volume histograms, there were no large differences between MC, analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS), 3DVH, and the COMPASS system. However, AAA underestimated the dose to the clinical target volume and Rt‐Parotid slightly. This is because AAA has some problems with dose calculation accuracy. Our results indicated that the COMPASS system offers highly accurate 3D dose calculation for clinical IMRT quality assurance. Also, the COMPASS system will be useful as a commissioning tool in routine clinical practice for TPS. PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.61.Bj

Radiation exposure of operator performing interventional procedures using a flat panel angiography system: evaluation with photoluminescence glass dosimeters

PurposeUsing glass rod dosimeters we investigated the radiation dose to the operator performing interventional procedures in 43 patients with the aid of a monoplane flat detector-based angiography system.Materials and methodsDuring the procedures we recorded the number of radiographic frames and the radiographic conditions. After treatment we recorded the fluoroscopy time and the fluoroscopic, radiographic, and total air kerma. To obtain the total operator exposure dose we took measurements at five sites: left orbital fossa, thyroid, left hand, left chest, and pubic symphysis.ResultsThe mean operator exposure dose to the left hand was higher than at the other sites we measured; it was 387.0, 209.6, 174.3, and 237.1 μGy for the stentgraft, percutaneous transluminal arteriography, transarterial chemoembolization, and hepatic infusion port placement procedures. There was a positive correlation between the fluoroscopic and radiographic air kerma value and the operator exposure dose at the left orbital fossa, thyroid, and left hand.ConclusionThe operator exposure dose correlated with the radiographic and fluoroscopic air kerma. Exposure of the operator’s left hand was higher than at the other sites studied.

Evaluation of a single-scan protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a single‐scan protocol using Gafchromic EBT3 film (EBT3) by comparing it with the commonly used 24‐hr measurement protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry. Radiochromic film is generally scanned 24 hr after film exposure (24‐hr protocol). The single‐scan protocol enables measurement results within a short time using only the verification film, one calibration film, and unirradiated film. The single‐scan protocol was scanned 30 min after film irradiation. The EBT3 calibration curves were obtained with the multichannel film dosimetry method. The dose verifications for each protocol were performed with the step pattern, pyramid pattern, and clinical treatment plans for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). The absolute dose distributions for each protocol were compared with those calculated by the treatment planning system (TPS) using gamma evaluation at 3% and 3 mm. The dose distribution for the single‐scan protocol was within 2% of the 24‐hr protocol dose distribution. For the step pattern, the absolute dose discrepancies between the TPS for the single‐scan and 24‐hr protocols were 2.0±1.8 cGy and 1.4±1.2 cGy at the dose plateau, respectively. The pass rates were 96.0% for the single‐scan protocol and 95.9% for the 24‐hr protocol. Similarly, the dose discrepancies for the pyramid pattern were 3.6±3.5 cGy and 2.9±3.3 cGy, respectively, while the pass rates for the pyramid pattern were 95.3% and 96.4%, respectively. The average pass rates for the four IMRT plans were 96.7%±1.8% for the single‐scan protocol and 97.3%±1.4% for the 24‐hr protocol. Thus, the single‐scan protocol measurement is useful for dose verification of IMRT, based on its accuracy and efficiency. PACS number: 87.55.Qr