Confirmation of skin doses resulting from bolus effect of intervening alpha-cradle and carbon fiber couch in radiotherapy.
In this study, we verified the treatment planning calculations of skin doses with the incorporation of the bolus effect due to the intervening alpha-cradle (AC) and carbon fiber couch (CFC) using radiochromic EBT2 films. A polystyrene phantom (25 × 25 × 15 cm(3)) with six EBT2 films separated by polystyrene slabs, at depths of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 1.4 cm, was positioned above an AC, which was ~1 cm thick. The phantom and AC assembly were CT scanned and the CT-images were transferred to the treatment planning system (TPS) for calculations in three scenarios: (A) ignoring AC and CFC, (B) accounting for AC only, (C) accounting for both AC and CFC. A single posterior 10 × 10 cm(2) field, a pair of posterior-oblique 10 × 10 cm(2) fields, and a posterior IMRT field (6 MV photons from a Varian Trilogy linac) were planned. For each radiation field configuration, the same MU were used in all three scenarios in the TPS. Each plan for scenario C was delivered to expose a stack of EBT2 films in the phantom through AC and CFC. In addition, in vivo EBT2 film measurement on a lung cancer patient immobilized with AC undergoing IMRT was also included in this study. Point doses and planar distributions generated from the TPS for the three scenarios were compared with the data from the EBT2 film measurements. For all the field arrangements, the EBT2 film data including the in vivo measurement agreed with the doses calculated for scenario (C), within the uncertainty of the EBT2 measurements (~4%). For the single posterior field (a pair of posterior-oblique fields), the TPS generated doses were lower than the EBT2 doses by 34%, 33%, 31%, 13% (34%, 31%, 31%, 11%) for scenario A and by 27%, 25%, 22%, 8% (25%, 21%, 21%, 6%) for scenario B at the depths of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 cm, respectively. For the IMRT field, the 2D dose distributions at each depth calculated in scenario C agree with those measured data. When comparing the central axis doses for the IMRT field, we found the TPS generated doses for scenario A (B) were lower than the EBT2 data by 35%, 34%, 31%, 16% (29%, 26%, 23%, 10%) at the depths of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5 cm, respectively. There were no significant differences for the depths of 1.0 and 1.4 cm for all the radiation fields studied. TPS calculation of doses in the skin layers accounting for AC and CFC was verified by EBT2 film data. Ignoring the presence of AC and/or CFC in TPS calculation would significantly underestimate the doses in the skin layers. For the clinicians, as more hypofractionated regimens and stereotactic regimens are being used, this information will be useful to avoid potential serious skin toxicities, and also assist in clinical decisions and report these doses accurately to relevant clinical trials/cooperative groups, such as RTOG.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 136 Mountain View Blvd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA. chanm@mskcc.org
Maria F
MF
Chan
Sou-Tung
ST
Chiu-Tsao
Jingdong
J
Li
Karen
K
Schupak
Preeti
P
Parhar
Chandra
C
Burman
D002138:Calibration; D006801:Humans; D010315:Particle Accelerators / Q000295:instrumentation; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011874:Radiometry; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D012867:Skin / Q000528:radiation effects*