Andrew J. White, Cliff G. Hammer, Matthew W. Brenner, Larry A. DeWerd, Kurt E. Stump, Wesley S. Culberson
{"title":"考虑TLD对CBCT方案在外束放疗剂量监测中的反应。","authors":"Andrew J. White, Cliff G. Hammer, Matthew W. Brenner, Larry A. DeWerd, Kurt E. Stump, Wesley S. Culberson","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are commonly used in radiation therapy to verify the delivered dose. Examples include dose verification for complicated treatment setups or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). TLDs may be present for both the pre-treatment imaging kilovoltage (kV) beam and the megavoltage (MV) treatment beams. For low energy x-ray beams, where the photoelectric effect dominates, TLDs respond differently than tissue or water. An overresponse of up to 40% has been previously reported for lower-energy (kV) x-rays when calibrated to higher-energy (MV) beams. In this work, the response of TLDs to various cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols with calibrations in clinical therapy beams (MV) is quantified.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Three Varian OBI (Head, Thorax, and Pelvis) and three Elekta XVI (Fast Head and Neck, Fast Chest, and Fast Pelvis) CBCT protocols were investigated. For each protocol, TLDs were positioned on a tissue equivalent phantom at various distances extending out from the center of the imaging field. The response was determined by calibrating TLDs to a 6 MV photon beam.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The maximum in-field TLD response ranged from 0.82 to 4.80 and 0.06 to 2.69 cGy for Varian OBI and Elekta XVI protocols, respectively. The out-of-field CBCT response dropped exponentially from the field edge. Calculated uncertainties were generally less than 3% (<i>k</i> = 1), with exceptions along the edge of the CBCT field (6%) and at the most distal TLD positions (34%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Using the measured TLD responses to CBCT protocols with an MV calibration, the therapeutic dose can be isolated. The therapeutic dose can then be compared to predictions from the treatment planning system (TPS), allowing for more accurate dose verification for complex treatment setups and patients with CIEDs. The CBCT response can change the reported therapeutic dose by up to 2.5%.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70103","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accounting for TLD response to CBCT protocols in external beam radiotherapy dose monitoring\",\"authors\":\"Andrew J. White, Cliff G. Hammer, Matthew W. Brenner, Larry A. DeWerd, Kurt E. Stump, Wesley S. Culberson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70103\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are commonly used in radiation therapy to verify the delivered dose. Examples include dose verification for complicated treatment setups or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). TLDs may be present for both the pre-treatment imaging kilovoltage (kV) beam and the megavoltage (MV) treatment beams. For low energy x-ray beams, where the photoelectric effect dominates, TLDs respond differently than tissue or water. An overresponse of up to 40% has been previously reported for lower-energy (kV) x-rays when calibrated to higher-energy (MV) beams. In this work, the response of TLDs to various cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols with calibrations in clinical therapy beams (MV) is quantified.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Three Varian OBI (Head, Thorax, and Pelvis) and three Elekta XVI (Fast Head and Neck, Fast Chest, and Fast Pelvis) CBCT protocols were investigated. For each protocol, TLDs were positioned on a tissue equivalent phantom at various distances extending out from the center of the imaging field. The response was determined by calibrating TLDs to a 6 MV photon beam.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The maximum in-field TLD response ranged from 0.82 to 4.80 and 0.06 to 2.69 cGy for Varian OBI and Elekta XVI protocols, respectively. The out-of-field CBCT response dropped exponentially from the field edge. Calculated uncertainties were generally less than 3% (<i>k</i> = 1), with exceptions along the edge of the CBCT field (6%) and at the most distal TLD positions (34%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using the measured TLD responses to CBCT protocols with an MV calibration, the therapeutic dose can be isolated. The therapeutic dose can then be compared to predictions from the treatment planning system (TPS), allowing for more accurate dose verification for complex treatment setups and patients with CIEDs. The CBCT response can change the reported therapeutic dose by up to 2.5%.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70103\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70103\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70103","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accounting for TLD response to CBCT protocols in external beam radiotherapy dose monitoring
Purpose
LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are commonly used in radiation therapy to verify the delivered dose. Examples include dose verification for complicated treatment setups or cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). TLDs may be present for both the pre-treatment imaging kilovoltage (kV) beam and the megavoltage (MV) treatment beams. For low energy x-ray beams, where the photoelectric effect dominates, TLDs respond differently than tissue or water. An overresponse of up to 40% has been previously reported for lower-energy (kV) x-rays when calibrated to higher-energy (MV) beams. In this work, the response of TLDs to various cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) protocols with calibrations in clinical therapy beams (MV) is quantified.
Methods
Three Varian OBI (Head, Thorax, and Pelvis) and three Elekta XVI (Fast Head and Neck, Fast Chest, and Fast Pelvis) CBCT protocols were investigated. For each protocol, TLDs were positioned on a tissue equivalent phantom at various distances extending out from the center of the imaging field. The response was determined by calibrating TLDs to a 6 MV photon beam.
Results
The maximum in-field TLD response ranged from 0.82 to 4.80 and 0.06 to 2.69 cGy for Varian OBI and Elekta XVI protocols, respectively. The out-of-field CBCT response dropped exponentially from the field edge. Calculated uncertainties were generally less than 3% (k = 1), with exceptions along the edge of the CBCT field (6%) and at the most distal TLD positions (34%).
Conclusions
Using the measured TLD responses to CBCT protocols with an MV calibration, the therapeutic dose can be isolated. The therapeutic dose can then be compared to predictions from the treatment planning system (TPS), allowing for more accurate dose verification for complex treatment setups and patients with CIEDs. The CBCT response can change the reported therapeutic dose by up to 2.5%.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic