Surface buildup dose dependence on photon field delivery technique for IMRT.
The more complex delivery techniques required for implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) based on inverse planning optimization have changed the relationship between dose at depth and dose at buildup regions near the surface. Surface buildup dose is dependent on electron contamination primarily from the unblocked view of the flattening filter and secondarily from air and collimation systems. To evaluate the impact of beam segmentation on buildup dose, measurements were performed with 10 x 10 cm2 fields, which were delivered with 3 static 3.5 x 10 cm2 or 3 x 10 cm2 strips, 5 static 2 x 10 cm2 strips, 10 static 1 x 10 cm2 strips, and 1.1 x 10 cm2 dynamic delivery, compared with a 10 x 10 cm2 open field. Measurements were performed in water and Solid Water using parallel plate chambers, a stereotactic diode, and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for a 6 MV X-ray beam. Depth doses at 2 mm depth (relative to dose at 10 cm depth) were lower by 6%, 7%, 11%, and 10% for the above field delivery techniques, respectively, compared to the open field. These differences are most influenced by differences in multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission contributing to the useful beam. An example IMRT field was also studied to assess variations due to delivery technique (static vs. dynamic) and intensity level. Buildup dose is weakly dependent on the multileaf delivery technique for efficient IMRT fields.
Yokoyama
Shigeru
S
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0010, USA. Shigyoko@sarmc.org
Roberson
Peter L
PL
Litzenberg
Dale W
DW
Moran
Jean M
JM
Fraass
Benedick A
BA
D017785:Photons / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D011874:Radiometry / Q000379:methods*; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods*; D012542:Scattering, Radiation; D013499:Surface Properties
Med Phys. 1993 May-Jun;20(3):703-11
8350822
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Jul 1;53(3):630-7
12062606
Med Phys. 1983 Nov-Dec;10(6):856-61
6419032
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2002 Jul;12 (3):238-49
12118389
Med Phys. 1993 Sep-Oct;20(5):1411-5
8289723
Med Phys. 2001 Dec;28(12):2497-506
11797953
Radiother Oncol. 1986 Mar;5(3):235-44
3085172
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Feb 1;28(3):723-30
8113118
Med Phys. 1993 Sep-Oct;20(5):1417-27
8289724
Phys Med Biol. 1998 Oct;43(10):2785-94
9814517
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997 Mar 1;37(4):921-5
9128970
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):43-55
10071874
Med Phys. 1992 May-Jun;19(3):641-8
1508103
Med Phys. 2001 Nov;28(11):2227-33
11764026
Med Phys. 2002 May;29(5):810-20
12033577
Med Phys. 2003 Dec;30(12):3091-6
14713075
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996 Jul 1;35(4):845-6
8690655
Australas Radiol. 1997 May;41(2):148-50
9153811
Med Phys. 1992 Sep-Oct;19(5):1263-6
1435607
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002 Aug 1;53(5):1174-84
12128118
Med Phys. 1986 Mar-Apr;13(2):259-62
3084928
Med Phys. 1998 Jun;25(6):860-6
9650173
Med Phys. 1987 May-Jun;14(3):393-9
3600530
Phys Med Biol. 1985 Feb;30(2):139-51
3920683
Radiology. 1982 Jul;144(2):403-9
6806853