In vivo and phantom measurements of the secondary photon and neutron doses for prostate patients undergoing 18 MV IMRT.
For intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments 6 MV photons are typically used, however, for deep seated tumors in the pelvic region, higher photon energies are increasingly being employed. IMRT treatments require more monitor units (MU) to deliver the same dose as conformal treatments, causing increased secondary radiation to tissues outside the treated area from leakage and scatter, as well as a possible increase in the neutron dose from photon interactions in the machine head. Here we provide in vivo patient and phantom measurements of the secondary out-of-field photon radiation and the neutron dose equivalent for 18 MV IMRT treatments. The patients were treated for prostate cancer with 18 MV IMRT at institutions using different therapy machines and treatment planning systems. Phantom exposures at the different facilities were used to compare the secondary photon and neutron dose equivalent between typical IMRT delivered treatment plans with a six field three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) plan. For the in vivo measurements LiF thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs) and Al2O3 detectors using optically stimulated radiation were used to obtain the photon dose and CR-39 track etch detectors were used to obtain the neutron dose equivalent. For the phantom measurements a Bonner sphere (25.4 cm diameter) containing two types of TLDs (TLD-600 and TLD-700) having different thermal neutron sensitivities were used to obtain the out-of-field neutron dose equivalent. Our results showed that for patients treated with 18 MV IMRT the photon dose equivalent is greater than the neutron dose equivalent measured outside the treatment field and the neutron dose equivalent normalized to the prescription dose varied from 2 to 6 mSv/Gy among the therapy machines. The Bonner sphere results showed that the ratio of neutron equivalent doses for the 18 MV IMRT and 3DCRT prostate treatments scaled as the ratio of delivered MUs. We also observed differences in the measured neutron dose equivalent among the three therapy machines for both the in vivo and phantom exposures.
Reft
Chester S
CS
Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, The University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA. creft@radonc.uchicago.edu
Runkel-Muller
Renate
R
Myrianthopoulos
Leon
L
D000537:Aluminum Oxide / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009502:Neutrons; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D017785:Photons; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D011874:Radiometry; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D020266:Radiotherapy, Conformal / Q000379:methods; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000379:methods*; D013819:Thermoluminescent Dosimetry
D000537:Aluminum Oxide