skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-170: Patient Surface Dose Measurements Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters in Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer

Abstract

Purpose: To establish patient surface dose dosimetry for scanning proton beam therapy (SPBT) for breast cancer using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD). Methods: OSLDs were calibrated with SPB under the similar conditions as the treatments for breast cancer. A range shifter (RS) of 5 cm water equivalent thickness (WET) was used. The air gap from the surface of the range shifter to the surface of the phantom was 15 cm. A uniform planar dose generated by nominal energy of 118 MeV was delivered. The range of 118 MeV proton beam after the 5cm RS is approximately 5 cm in water, which is the common range for breast treatments. The OSLDs were placed on the surface of high density polyethylene slabs, and a bolus of 1.06 cm WET was used for buildup. A variety of dose levels in the range of 0.5 to 8 Gy were delivered. Under the same condition, an ADCL calibrated parallel plate (PP) chamber was used to measure the reference dose. The correlation between the output signals of OSLDs and the reference doses was established. The calibration of OSLD was verified against the PP chamber measurements for two SPBT breast plans calculated for two patients. Results: themore » least squares fitting for the OSLD calibration curve was a polynomial function to the order of 2 in the range of 0.5 to 8 Gy (RBE). The differences between the dose measured with OSLDs and PP chamber were within 3% for the two breast proton plans. Conclusion: the calibrated OSLDs under the similar conditions as the treatments can be used for patient surface dose measurements.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642411
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; DOSEMETERS; LEAST SQUARE FIT; LUMINESCENCE; MAMMARY GLANDS; MEV RANGE 100-1000; NEOPLASMS; PATIENTS; PROTON BEAMS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Yu, J, Strauss, D, Langner, U, and Langen, K. SU-F-T-170: Patient Surface Dose Measurements Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters in Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956307.
Yu, J, Strauss, D, Langner, U, & Langen, K. SU-F-T-170: Patient Surface Dose Measurements Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters in Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956307.
Yu, J, Strauss, D, Langner, U, and Langen, K. 2016. "SU-F-T-170: Patient Surface Dose Measurements Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters in Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956307.
@article{osti_22642411,
title = {SU-F-T-170: Patient Surface Dose Measurements Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeters in Scanning Proton Beam Therapy for Breast Cancer},
author = {Yu, J and Strauss, D and Langner, U and Langen, K},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To establish patient surface dose dosimetry for scanning proton beam therapy (SPBT) for breast cancer using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD). Methods: OSLDs were calibrated with SPB under the similar conditions as the treatments for breast cancer. A range shifter (RS) of 5 cm water equivalent thickness (WET) was used. The air gap from the surface of the range shifter to the surface of the phantom was 15 cm. A uniform planar dose generated by nominal energy of 118 MeV was delivered. The range of 118 MeV proton beam after the 5cm RS is approximately 5 cm in water, which is the common range for breast treatments. The OSLDs were placed on the surface of high density polyethylene slabs, and a bolus of 1.06 cm WET was used for buildup. A variety of dose levels in the range of 0.5 to 8 Gy were delivered. Under the same condition, an ADCL calibrated parallel plate (PP) chamber was used to measure the reference dose. The correlation between the output signals of OSLDs and the reference doses was established. The calibration of OSLD was verified against the PP chamber measurements for two SPBT breast plans calculated for two patients. Results: the least squares fitting for the OSLD calibration curve was a polynomial function to the order of 2 in the range of 0.5 to 8 Gy (RBE). The differences between the dose measured with OSLDs and PP chamber were within 3% for the two breast proton plans. Conclusion: the calibrated OSLDs under the similar conditions as the treatments can be used for patient surface dose measurements.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956307},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To investigate the use of optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) detectors (OSLDs) for measurements of dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LET) in patient-specific proton therapy treatment fields. Methods: We used Al{sub 2}O{sub 3}:C OSLDs made from the same material as commercially available nanoDot OSLDs from Landauer, Inc. We calibrated two parameters of the OSL signal as functions of LET in therapeutic proton beams: the ratio of the ultraviolet and blue emission intensities (UV/blue ratio) and the OSL curve shape. These calibration curves were created by irradiating OSLDs in passively scattered beams of known LET (0.96 to 3.91 keV/µm). The LET valuesmore » were determined using a validated Monte Carlo model of the beamline. We then irradiated new OSLDs with the prescription dose (16 to 74 cGy absorbed dose to water) at the center of the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) of four patient-specific treatment fields. From readouts of these OSLDs, we determined both the UV/blue ratio and OSL curve shape parameters. Combining these parameters with the calibration curves, we were able to measure LET using the OSLDs. The measurements were compared to the theoretical LET values obtained from Monte Carlo simulations of the patient-specific treatments fields. Results: Using the UV/blue ratio parameter, we were able to measure LET within 3.8%, 6.2%, 5.6% and 8.6% of the Monte Carlo value for each of the patient fields. Similarly, using the OSL curve shape parameter, LET measurements agreed within 0.5%, 11.0%, 2.5% and 7.6% for each of the four fields. Conclusion: We have demonstrated a method to verify LET in patient-specific proton therapy treatment fields using OSLDs. The possibility of enhancing biological effectiveness of proton therapy treatment plans by including LET in the optimization has been previously shown. The LET verification method we have demonstrated will be useful in the quality assurance of such LET optimized treatment plans. DA Granville received financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.« less
  • Purpose: To describe our experiences with patient-specific quality assurance (QA) for patients with prostate cancer receiving spot scanning proton therapy (SSPT) using single-field uniform dose (SFUD). Methods and Materials: The first group of 249 patients with prostate cancer treated with SSPT using SFUD was included in this work. The scanning-beam planning target volume and number of monitor units were recorded and checked for consistency. Patient-specific dosimetric measurements were performed, including the point dose for each plan, depth doses, and two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution in the planes perpendicular to the incident beam direction for each field at multiple depths. The {gamma}-indexmore » with 3% dose or 3-mm distance agreement criteria was used to evaluate the 2D dose distributions. Results: We observed a linear relationship between the number of monitor units and scanning-beam planning target volume. The difference between the measured and calculated point doses (mean {+-} SD) was 0.0% {+-} 0.7% (range, -2.9% to 1.8%). In general, the depth doses exhibited good agreement except at the distal end of the spread-out Bragg peak. The pass rate of {gamma}-index (mean {+-} SD) for 2D dose comparison was 96.2% {+-} 2.6% (range, 90-100%). Discrepancies between the measured and calculated dose distributions primarily resulted from the limitation of the model used by the treatment planning system. Conclusions: We have established a patient-specific QA program for prostate cancer patients receiving SSPT using SFUD.« less
  • Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the performance of optically stimulated Luminescence (OSL) nanoDots as in-vivo dosimeter. For the measurements of surface doses as well as scattered plus leakage doses, nanoDots were used during the setup verification as well as during the treatment delivery. Methods: For a total seven patients undergoing radiotherapy by volumetric modulated arc therapy, surface doses from image guidance and scattered plus leakage doses from treatment delivery were measured. Two sets of calibration curves were generated – one for therapy and another for imaging. Two different nanoDots were used for imaging and therapy doses. Imaging nanoDotsmore » were placed at the isocenter only at the time of CBCT and therapy nanoDots were placed at 25 cm away from the isocenter (either in cranial or in caudal direction) only at the time of treatment delivery. During the entire course, nanoDots were placed at the same measurement points. NanoDots were read after 15 minutes of their exposure. For the next fraction, nanoDots were corrected for the residual doses from the previous fractions. Results: Measured surface doses during imaging were 0.14±0.32 cGy, 0.11±0.04 cGy, 0.12±0.53 cGy, 0.04±0.02 cGy, 0.13±0.23 cGy, 0.11±0.43 cGy, 0.10±0.04 cGy with overall mean dose of 0.08±0.1 cGy. Measured doses during treatment delivery, indicative of scattered and leakage dose, were 0.84±0.43 cGy, 1.3±0.4 cGy, 1.4±0.4 cGy, 0.18±0.48 cGy, 0.78±0.29 cGy, 0.27±0.08 cGy, 0.78±0.07 cGy with overall mean dose of 0.61±1.3 cGy. Conclusion: This dosimeter can be used as supplementary unit to verify the doses. No change in the prescription is recommended based on nanoDots measurement. This study is on-going therefore we are presenting only mere number of patients. A large volume data will be presented after completion of the study with proper statistical analysis.« less
  • Purpose: To measure the skin dose and compare it with the calculated dose from a treatment planning system (TPS) for breast cancer treatment using scanning proton beam therapy (SPBT). Methods: A single en-face-beam SPBT plan was generated by a commercial TPS for two breast cancer patients. The treatment volumes were the entire breasts (218 cc and 1500 cc) prescribed to 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. A range shifter of 5 cm water equivalent thickness was used. The organ at risk (skin) was defined to be 5 mm thick from the surface. The skin doses were measured in water withmore » an ADCL calibrated parallel plate (PP) chamber. The measured data were compared with the values calculated in the TPS. Skin dose calculations can be subject to uncertainties created by the definition of the external contour and the limitations of the correction based algorithms, such as proton convolution superposition. Hence, the external contours were expanded by 0, 3 mm and 1 cm to include additional pixels for dose calculation. In addition, to examine the effects of the cloth gown on the skin dose, the skin dose measurements were conducted with and without gown. Results: On average the measured skin dose was 4% higher than the calculated values. At deeper depths, the measured and calculated doses were in better agreement (< 2%). Large discrepancy occur for the dose calculated without external expansion due to volume averaging. The addition of the gown only increased the measured skin dose by 0.4%. Conclusion: The implemented TPS underestimated the skin dose for breast treatments. Superficial dose calculation without external expansion would result in large errors for SPBT for breast cancer.« less
  • Purpose: A new readout technology based on pulsed optically stimulating luminescence is introduced (microSTARii, Landauer, Inc, Glenwood, IL60425). This investigation searches for approaches that maximizes the dosimetry accuracy in clinical applications. Methods: The sensitivity of each optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) was initially characterized by exposing it to a given radiation beam. After readout, the luminescence signal stored in the OSLD was erased by exposing its sensing area to a 21W white LED light for 24 hours. A set of OSLDs with consistent sensitivities was selected to calibrate the dose reader. Higher order nonlinear curves were also derived from themore » calibration readings. OSLDs with cumulative doses below 15 Gy were reused. Before an in-vivo dosimetry, the OSLD luminescence signal was erased with the white LED light. Results: For a set of 68 manufacturer-screened OSLDs, the measured sensitivities vary in a range of 17.3%. A sub-set of the OSLDs with sensitivities within ±1% was selected for the reader calibration. Three OSLDs in a group were exposed to a given radiation. Nine groups were exposed to radiation doses ranging from 0 to 13 Gy. Additional verifications demonstrated that the reader uncertainty is about 3%. With an external calibration function derived by fitting the OSLD readings to a 3rd-order polynomial, the dosimetry uncertainty dropped to 0.5%. The dose-luminescence response curves of individual OSLDs were characterized. All curves converge within 1% after the sensitivity correction. With all uncertainties considered, the systematic uncertainty is about 2%. Additional tests emulating in-vivo dosimetry by exposing the OSLDs under different radiation sources confirmed the claim. Conclusion: The sensitivity of individual OSLD should be characterized initially. A 3rd-order polynomial function is a more accurate representation of the dose-luminescence response curve. The dosimetry uncertainty specified by the manufacturer is 4%. Following the proposed approach, it can be controlled to 2%.« less