Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:43:03.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and evaluation of a Perspex anthropomorphic head and neck phantom for three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Khaldoon M. Radaideh ,
Laila M. Matalqah ,
A. A. Tajuddin ,
W. I. Fabian Lee ,
S. Bauk  and
E. M. Eid Abdel Munem
Khaldoon M. Radaideh*
Affiliation:
School of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Allianze University College of Medical Sciences (AUCMS), Kepala Batas, Penang, Malaysia School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
Laila M. Matalqah
Affiliation:
School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia School of Pharmacy, Allianze University College of Medical Sciences (AUCMS), Kepala Batas, Penang, Malaysia
A. A. Tajuddin
Affiliation:
School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kepala Batas, Penang, Malaysia
W. I. Fabian Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Mount Miriam Cancer Hospital, Jalan Bulan, Penang, Malaysia
S. Bauk
Affiliation:
Physics Section, School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Penang, Malaysia
E. M. Eid Abdel Munem
Affiliation:
School of Physics, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
*
Correspondence to: Dr Khaldoon M. Radaideh, School of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, Allianze University College of Medical Sciences (AUCMS), 13200, Kepala Batas, Penang, Malaysia. Tel: 0060175041614. Fax: 0060145780840. E-mail: khaldoonmah1@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Purposes

To design, construct and evaluate an anthropomorphic head and neck phantom for the dosimetric evaluation of 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) dose planning and delivery, for protocols developed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG).

Materials and methods

An anthropomorphic head and neck phantom was designed and fabricated using Perspex material with delineated planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk (OARs) regions. The phantom was imaged, planned and irradiated conformally by a 3D-CRT plan. Dosimetry within the phantom was assessed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). The reproducibility of phantoms and TLD readings were checked by three repeated identical irradiations. Subsequent three clinical 3D-CRT plans for nasopharyngeal patients have been verified using the phantom. Measured doses from each dosimeter were compared with those acquired from the treatment planning system (TPS).

Results

Phantom's measured doses were reproducible with <3·5% standard deviation between the three TLDs’ repeated measurements. Verification of three head and neck 3D-CRT patients’ plans was implemented, and good agreement between measured values and those predicted by TPS was found. The percentage dose difference for TLD readings matched those corresponding to the calculated dose to within 4%.

Conclusion

The good agreement between predicted and measured dose shows that the phantom is a useful and efficient tool for 3D-CRT technique dosimetric verification.

Keywords

anthropomorphic head and neck Phantom3D-CRTthermoluminescent dosimeter
Type
Technical Note
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 272 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Omar, Z, Mohd Ali, Z, Ibrahim Tamin, NS. Malaysian cancer statistics-data and figure Peninsular Malaysia, 2006.Google Scholar
2.Kam, M K M, Chau, R, Suen, J, Choi, P H K, Teo, P M L. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: dosimetric advantage over conventional plans and feasibility of dose escalation* 1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 56 (1): 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Nutting, C M, Morden, J P, Harrington, K Jet al. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 127–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Fang, F M, Chien, C Y, Tsai, W Let al. Quality of life and survival outcome for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy vs. intensity-modulated radiotherapy – a longitudinal study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008; 72 (2): 356–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Boyer, A L, Mok, E, Luxton, Get al. Quality assurance for treatment planning dose delivery by 3DRTP and IMRT. In: Shiu A S, Mellenberg D E (eds). General Practice of Radiation Oncology Physics in the 21st Century. Madison, WI: Med Phys, Publishing, 2000: 187–230.Google Scholar
6.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurement. Report 44, Bethesda, MD: ICRU, 1989.Google Scholar
7.Webster, G J. Design and implementation of a head & neck phantom (HANK) for system audit and verification of IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008; 9 (2): 2740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Šemnická, J, Vácek, V S, Veselský, T, kon ek, O. Designing phantom for head-and-neck treatment verification: Feasibility tests with bone and bone equivalent material incorporated into polymer gel. J Phys, conference series 164, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Molineu, A, Followill, D S, Balter, P Aet al. Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63 (2): 577–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Attix, F. Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry, 1st edition. Wiley-VCH: Wiley Inter-science, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Horowitz, Y S. Thermoluminescence and Thermoluminescent Dosimetry, v. 1, 1984.Google Scholar
12.McKinlay, A. Thermoluminescence Dosimetry. Bristol: Hilger, 1981.Google Scholar
13.McKeever, S W S, Moscovitch, M, Townsend, P D. Thermoluminescence Dosimetry Materials: Properties and Uses. Ashford, Kent: Nuclear Technology Publishing, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
14.Furetta, C, Weng, P S. Operational Thermoluminescence Dosimetry. Singapore: World Scientific Pub Co Inc, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Radaideh, K, Alzoubi, A. Factors impacting the dose at maximum depth dose (dmax) for 6 MV high-energy photon beams using different dosimetric detectors. Biohealth Sc Bulletin 2010; 2 (2): 38–42.Google Scholar
16.Yazici, N. The influence of heating rate on the TL response of the main glow peaks 5 and 4+ 5 of sensitized TLD-100 treated by two different annealing protocols. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 2004; 215 (1–2): 174–180.Google Scholar
17.Lee, N, Pfister, D, Garden, A. RTOG 0615, A phase II study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy using three-dimentional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)+ bevacizumab (BV) for locally or regionally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer, 2009.Google Scholar
18.Kry, S F, Titt, U, Pönisch, Fet al. A Monte Carlo model for calculating out-of-field dose from a Varian 6 MV beam. Med Phys 2006; 33 (11): 4405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Charalambous, S, Petridou, C. The thermoluminescence behaviour of LiF (TLD-100) for doses up to 10 M Rad. Nucl Instrum Methods 1976; 137 (3): 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kron, T, Duggan, L, Smith, Tet al. Dose response of various radiation detectors to synchrotron radiation. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43: 3235–3259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Harris, C K, Elson, H R, Lamba, M A S, Foster, A E. A comparison of the effectiveness of thermoluminescent crystals LiF:Mg, Ti and LiF:Mg, Cu, P for clinical dosimters. Med Phys 1997; 24 (9): 1527–1529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Lee, J, Yehc, C, Hsud, Set al. Simple dose verification system for radiotherapy radiation. Radiat Measurements 2008; 43: 954–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Jeraj, R, Keall, P J, Siebers, J V. The effect of dose calculation accuracy on inverse treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 2002; 47: 391–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Bekes, K, Francke, U, Schaller, H Get al. The influence of different irradiation doses and desensitizer application on demineralization of human dentin. Oral Oncol 2009; 45 (9): e80–ee4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Vergeer, M R, Doornaert, P A H, Rietveld, D H F, Leemans, C R, Slotman, B J, Langendijk, J A. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy reduces radiation-induced morbidity and improves health-related quality of life: results of a nonrandomized prospective study using a standardized follow-up program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 74 (1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Eisbruch, A, Clifford, C K S, Garden, A. RTOG 0022: Phase I/II Study Of Conformal And Intensity Modulated Irradiation For Oropharyngeal Cancer Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, 2004.Google Scholar
27.Eisbruch, A, Ship, J A, Martel, M Ket al. Parotid gland sparing in patients undergoing bilateral head and neck irradiation: techniques and early results. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 36 (2): 469–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Malouf, J G, Aragon, C, Henson, B Set al. Influence of parotid-sparing radiotherapy on xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients. Cancer Detection and Prevention 2003; 27 (4): 305–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Jabbari, S, Kim, H M, Feng, Met al. Matched case-control study of quality of life and xerostomia after intensity-modulated radiotherapy or standard radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer: initial report. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005; 63 (3): 725–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed