Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T13:07:16.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and dosimetric evaluation of the IMRT prostate at outside-the-irradiated field in a heterogeneity male pelvis phantom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2022

J. Jayamani Open the ORCID record for J. Jayamani [Opens in a new window] ,
N. D. Osman ,
A. A. Tajuddin ,
D. O. Samson ,
K. E. Kamaruddin  and
M. Z. Abdul Aziz Open the ORCID record for M. Z. Abdul Aziz [Opens in a new window]
J. Jayamani
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia Oncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 13200 Kepala Batas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
N. D. Osman
Affiliation:
Oncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 13200 Kepala Batas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
A. A. Tajuddin
Affiliation:
Albukhary International University, 05200 Alor Setar, Kedah, Malaysia
D. O. Samson
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Abuja, P.M.B 117, F.C.T., Abuja, Nigeria
K. E. Kamaruddin
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150 Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
M. Z. Abdul Aziz*
Affiliation:
Oncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 13200 Kepala Batas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
*
Author for correspondence: Mohd Zahri Abdul Aziz, Oncological and Radiological Sciences Cluster, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 13200 Kepala Batas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Email: mrzahri@gmail.com/mohdzahri@usm.my
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery requires pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for the dosimetry verification due to its complex multileaf-collimator movement. The prostate target close position between the bladder and rectum requires a tight margin during planning, and mistreatment would have a huge impact on the patient. A commercially available QA tool consists of a homogeneous medium and does not represent an exact photon interaction on the tumour and also on the nearby healthy organ.

Objective:

A heterogeneous male pelvis phantom was developed and investigated the efficiency of the treatment planning system (TPS) calculation on the off-axis region.

Methods:

Polymethyl methacrylate was used for the phantom housing, and the material closed to the bladder, rectum and prostate density was chosen to construct the organ models. The phantom was scanned and validated by the computed tomography number and density. An IMRT treatment was planned in the Monaco TPS, and a thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD-100) was used to validate the point dosimetry. In addition, an EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation was carried out to validate the phantom dosimetry.

Results & Discussion:

The dose measurement between TLD-100, TPS, and EGSnrc was compared and validated in the pelvis phantom. In the prostate region, the dose difference was within ± 5%, and the maximum dose difference outside-the-irradiated field was up to 20·07 % and 47·31 % in TPS and TLD-100, respectively. Meanwhile, the measured dose was lower than the calculated dose, and it was apparent for the dose outside-the-irradiated field.

Conclusion:

The developed heterogeneity male pelvis phantom was validated and verified to be an important QA device for validating radiation dosimetry in the pelvis region. The dose outside-the-irradiated field was underestimated by both TPS and TLD, respectively.

Keywords

EGSnrc Monte Carloquality assurancethermoluminescent dosimeter
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 22 , 2023 , e49
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Khabaz, R. Phantom dosimetry and cancer risks estimation undergoing 6 MV photon beam by an Elekta SL-25 linac. Appl Radiat Isot 2020; 163: 109232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamomae, T, Shimizu, H, Nakaya, T et al. Three-dimensional printer-generated patient-specific phantom for artificial in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy quality assurance. Physica Medica 2017; 44: 205–211.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, S-J, Qian, H-N, Zhao, Y et al. Relationship between age and prostate size. Asian J Androl 2013; 15: 116–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lurie, KL, Smith, GT, Khan, SA et al. Three-dimensional, distendable bladder phantom for optical coherence tomography and white light cystoscopy. J Biomed Opt 2014; 19: 036009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, D, Kenyon, A, Adamson, D. Physiology. In: Bennett, P, Williamson, C (eds.). Basic Science in Obstetrics and Gynaecology: A Textbook for MRCOG Part I. 4th Edition. Churchill Livingstone, 2010: 173–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, JM, Barberi, EA, Miller, J et al. Development and evaluation of a novel MR-compatible pelvic end-to-end phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20(1): 265–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, DA, Moran, JM, Dempsey, JF et al. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Medical Physics 2011; 38: 1313–1338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elcim, Y, Dirican, B, Yavas, O. Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms in conformal lung radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018; 19: 616–624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liuzzi, R, Savino, F, D’Avino, V et al. Evaluation of LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD-100) for intraoperative electron radiation therapy quality assurance. Multhoff G (ed.). PLOS ONE 2015; 10: e0139287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kung, JH, Reft, C, Jackson, W et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for a prostate patient with a metal prosthesis. Med Dosim 2001;26:305–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, A, Reft, C, Rash, C et al. A case study of radiotherapy planning for a bilateral metal hip prosthesis prostate cancer patient. Med Dosim 2005; 30: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayashi, A, Shibamoto, Y, Hattori, Y et al. Dose volume histogram comparison between static 5-field IMRT with 18-MV X-rays and helical tomotherapy with 6-MV X-rays. J Radiat Res 2015; 56: 338–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawrakow, I, Mainegra-Hing, E, Rogers, DWO et al. The EGSnrc Code System: Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport. National Research Council Canada (NRCC), Ottawa, Canada, 2018.Google Scholar
Jayamani, J., Osman, N. D., Tajuddin, A. A. et al. Dosimetric comparison between Monaco TPS and EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation on Titanium Rod in 12bit and 16bit image format. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 2020; 13: 496–506. DOI: 10.1080/16878507.2020.1754042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M, Qin, S, Chen, T et al. A clinical objective IMRT QA method based on portal dosimetry and electronic portal imager device (EPID) measurement. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2012; 12. DOI: 10.7785/tcrt.2012.500314.Google ScholarPubMed
Shrotriya, D, Yadav, RS, Srivastava, RNL et al. Design and development of an indigenous in-house tissue- equivalent female pelvic phantom for radiological dosimetric applications. Iranian J Med Physics 2018; 15. DOI: 10.22038/ijmp.2018.26717.1274.Google Scholar
Berger, MJ, Inokuti, M, Anderson, HH et al. ICRU report 37. J Int Comm RadiatUnits Measurem 1984;os19:NP-NP.Google Scholar
Harrison, KM, Ebert, MA, Kron, T et al. Design, manufacture, and evaluation of an anthropomorphic pelvic phantom purpose-built for radiotherapy dosimetric intercomparison. Med Phys 2011; 38: 5330–5337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Afifi, MB, Abdelrazek, A, Deiab, NA et al. The effects of CT x-ray tube voltage and current variations on the relative electron density (RED) and CT number conversion curves. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 2020; 13: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haga, A, Magome, T, Takenaka, S et al. Independent absorbed-dose calculation using the Monte Carlo algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kry, SF, Bednarz, B, Howell, RM et al. AAPM TG 158: measurement and calculation of doses outside the treated volume from external-beam radiation therapy. Med Phys 2017; 44: e391–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bencomo, JA, Chu, C, Tello, VM et al. Anthropomorphic breast phantoms for quality assurance and dose verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2004; 5: 36–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kawrakow, I, Fippel, M. Investigation of variance reduction techniques for Monte Carlo photon dose calculation using XVMC. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 2163–2183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smilowitz, JB, Das, IJ, Feygelman, V et al. AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.a.: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations - megavoltage photon and electron beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16: 14–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebrahim Ahmed, AA. Study of Physical Factors Affecting the TLD Readout. 2015.Google Scholar
Akpochafor, MO, Aweda, MA, Ibitoye, ZA et al. Thermoluminescent dosimetry in clinical kilovoltage beams. Radiography 2013; 19: 326–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nath, R, Biggs, PJ, Bova, FJ et al. AAPM Code of Practice for Radiotherapy Accelerators: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy TG45. New York, United States of America, 1994.Google Scholar
Kry, SF, Molineu, A, Kerns, J et al. Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 90: 1195–1201.Google Scholar
Miften, M, Olch, A, Mihailidis, D et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM task group No. 218. Med Phys 2018; 45: e53–83.Google ScholarPubMed
van Dyk, J, Battista, JJ, Bauman, GS. Accuracy and uncertainty considerations in modern radiation oncology. In: van Dyk, J (ed.). The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin, 2013.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jayamani et al. supplementary material

Jayamani et al. supplementary material

Download Jayamani et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.2 MB