Display options
Cite
Olding T, Holmes O, Dejean P, et al. Small field dose delivery evaluations using cone beam optical computed tomography-based polymer gel dosimetry. J Med Phys. 2011;36(1):3-14doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.75466.
Olding, T., Holmes, O., Dejean, P., McAuley, K. B., Nkongchu, K., Santyr, G., & Schreiner, L. J. (2011). Small field dose delivery evaluations using cone beam optical computed tomography-based polymer gel dosimetry. Journal of medical physics, 36(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.75466
Olding, Timothy, et al. "Small field dose delivery evaluations using cone beam optical computed tomography-based polymer gel dosimetry." Journal of medical physics vol. 36,1 (2011): 3-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.75466
Olding T, Holmes O, Dejean P, McAuley KB, Nkongchu K, Santyr G, Schreiner LJ. Small field dose delivery evaluations using cone beam optical computed tomography-based polymer gel dosimetry. J Med Phys. 2011 Jan;36(1):3-14. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.75466. PMID: 21430853; PMCID: PMC3048952.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Med Phys. 2011 Jan;36(1):3-14. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.75466.

Small field dose delivery evaluations using cone beam optical computed tomography-based polymer gel dosimetry.

Journal of medical physics

Timothy Olding, Oliver Holmes, Paul Dejean, Kim B McAuley, Ken Nkongchu, Giles Santyr, L John Schreiner

Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

PMID: 21430853 PMCID: PMC3048952 DOI: 10.4103/0971-6203.75466

Abstract

This paper explores the combination of cone beam optical computed tomography with an N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM)-based polymer gel dosimeter for three-dimensional dose imaging of small field deliveries. Initial investigations indicate that cone beam optical imaging of polymer gels is complicated by scattered stray light perturbation. This can lead to significant dosimetry failures in comparison to dose readout by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). For example, only 60% of the voxels from an optical CT dose readout of a 1 l dosimeter passed a two-dimensional Low's gamma test (at a 3%, 3 mm criteria, relative to a treatment plan for a well-characterized pencil beam delivery). When the same dosimeter was probed by MRI, a 93% pass rate was observed. The optical dose measurement was improved after modifications to the dosimeter preparation, matching its performance with the imaging capabilities of the scanner. With the new dosimeter preparation, 99.7% of the optical CT voxels passed a Low's gamma test at the 3%, 3 mm criteria and 92.7% at a 2%, 2 mm criteria. The fitted interjar dose responses of a small sample set of modified dosimeters prepared (a) from the same gel batch and (b) from different gel batches prepared on the same day were found to be in agreement to within 3.6% and 3.8%, respectively, over the full dose range. Without drawing any statistical conclusions, this experiment gives a preliminary indication that intrabatch or interbatch NIPAM dosimeters prepared on the same day should be suitable for dose sensitivity calibration.

Keywords: Cone beam optical computed tomography; polymer gel dosimetry; small field dose delivery; three dimensional

References

  1. Phys Med Biol. 2001 Feb;46(2):449-60 - PubMed
  2. Br J Radiol. 1974 Feb;47(554):115-21 - PubMed
  3. Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 21;51(8):2055-75 - PubMed
  4. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11(2):253-8 - PubMed
  5. Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 21;52(10):2893-903 - PubMed
  6. Phys Med Biol. 1984 Oct;29(10):1189-97 - PubMed
  7. Phys Med Biol. 1990 Dec;35(12):1623-31 - PubMed
  8. Magn Reson Med. 1986 Oct;3(5):707-21 - PubMed
  9. Med Phys. 1999 Nov;26(11):2508-13 - PubMed
  10. Phys Med Biol. 2009 Apr 21;54(8):2463-81 - PubMed
  11. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1992;11(3):319-29 - PubMed
  12. Med Phys. 2004 May;31(5):1093-104 - PubMed
  13. Med Phys. 1999 Aug;26(8):1542-51 - PubMed
  14. Med Phys. 2003 Sep;30(9):2455-64 - PubMed
  15. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Sep 21;55(18):5269-81 - PubMed
  16. Phys Med Biol. 2001 Oct;46(10):2665-80 - PubMed
  17. Phys Med Biol. 1996 Dec;41(12):2695-704 - PubMed
  18. Phys Med Biol. 2000 Sep;45(9):2559-71 - PubMed
  19. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 15;70(4):1281-91 - PubMed
  20. Phys Med Biol. 2001 Dec;46(12):3191-213 - PubMed
  21. Phys Med Biol. 2001 Oct;46(10):2697-711 - PubMed
  22. Phys Med Biol. 2007 Jul 7;52(13):3693-713 - PubMed
  23. Phys Med Biol. 2006 Jul 21;51(14):3301-14 - PubMed
  24. Phys Med Biol. 1996 Dec;41(12):2705-17 - PubMed
  25. Phys Med Biol. 2007 May 21;52(10):2719-28 - PubMed
  26. Phys Med Biol. 2010 May 21;55(10):2819-40 - PubMed
  27. Med Phys. 2003 Apr;30(4):623-34 - PubMed
  28. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2001 Mar;24(1):19-30 - PubMed
  29. Phys Med Biol. 2002 Sep 7;47(17):3117-41 - PubMed

Publication Types