These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Entrance dose measurement: a simple and reliable technique.
    Author: Banjade DP, Raj TA, Ng BS, Xavier S, Tajuddin AA, Shukri A.
    Journal: Med Dosim; 2003; 28(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 12804703.
    Abstract:
    Verification of tumor dose for patients undergoing external beam radiotherapy is an important part of quality assurance programs in radiation oncology. Among the various methods available, entrance dose in vivo is one reliable method used to verify the tumor dose delivered to a patient. In this work, entrance dose measurements using LiF:Mg;Ti and LiF:Mg;Cu;P thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) without buildup cap was carried out. The TLDs were calibrated at the surface of a water equivalent phantom against the maximum dose, using 6- and 10-MV photon and 9-MeV electron beams. The calibration geometry was such that the TLDs were placed on the surface of the "solid-water" phantom and a calibrated ionization chamber was positioned inside the phantom at calibration depth. The calibrated TLDs were then utilized to measure the entrance dose during the treatment of actual patients. Measurements were also carried out in the same phantom simultaneously to check the stability of the system. The dose measured in the phantom using the TLDs calibrated for entrance dose to 6-and 10-MV photon beams was found to be close to the dose determined by the treatment planning system (TPS) with discrepancies of not more than 4.1% (mean 1.3%). Consequently, the measured entrance dose during dose delivery to the actual patients with a prescribed geometry was found to be compatible with a maximum discrepancy of 5.7% (mean 2.2%) when comparison was made with the dose determined by the TPS. Likewise, the measured entrance dose for electron beams in the phantom and in actual patients using the calibrated TLDs were also found to be close, with maximum discrepancies of 3.2% (mean 2.0%) and 4.8% (mean 2.3%), respectively. Careful implementation of this technique provides vital information with an ability to confidently accept treatment algorithms derived by the TPS or to re-evaluate the parameters when necessary.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]