Evaluation of Surface Dose for Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy of Head and Neck Cancer Using Thermoluminescent Dosimeters

Year 2022, , 156 - 163, 30.06.2022

Osman Vefa Gül , Nihal Büyükçizmeci , Hamit Başaran

https://doi.org/10.54287/gujsa.1109112

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Accurate estimation of the surface dose in radiotherapy of patients with head and neck cancer is very important in terms of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the surface dose for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of head and neck cancer using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). In addition, it is aimed to examine the surface dose estimates of the treatment planning system (TPS) for different grid sizes. Before the computed tomography (CT) images were taken for 15 head and neck cancer patients, 5 different points determined in the neck region were marked in a way that would not cause artifacts. IMRT plans are created for 1.5 and 2.5 mm grid sizes. Surface doses were obtained for TPS calculations and TLD measurements at 5 different points in the neck region. Surface doses obtained from TLD measurements and TPS calculations with different grid sizes were compared. All patients received 3-stage adaptive radiotherapy (ART) and the surface dose comparison was repeated for each plan. According to plan 0, the height of TLD measurements for the 1.5 and 2.5 mm grid size were 4.06% and 7.87%, respectively. In Plan 1, the difference between TPS and TLD doses was 4.00% and 8.15% for grid size 1.5mm and 2.5mm, respectively (p=0.00 and p=0.00). For dose measurements from Plan 2, the difference between TPS and TLD doses was 4.07% and 9.96% for grid size 1.5mm and 2.5mm, respectively (p=0.00 and p=0.00). Surface doses obtained in TLD measurements for all treatment plans were higher than in TPS dose calculations. Accurate estimation of the surface dose in head and neck cancer radiotherapy is very important for treatment. Surface doses calculated with TPS are usually lower than the prescribed dose. Therefore, during the evaluation of radiotherapy plans, it should be considered that TPS underestimates the surface dose. This ratio can be determined by dosimetric measurements. Thermoluminescent dosimeters are suitable equipment for this process.

Keywords

Thermoluminescent Dosimeter, Head and Neck Cancer, Surface Dose, Dosimetry, Radiotherapy

References

• Akbas, U., Kesen, N. D., Koksal, C., Ozkaya, K., Altun, M., & Bilge, H. (2018). Investigation of surface dose using film dosimetry and commercial treatment planning system for larynx cancer treatment with intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Turkish Journal of Oncology, 33(1), 12-17. doi:10.5505/tjo.2018.1736
• Akino, Y., Das, I. J., Bartlett, G. K., Zhang, H., Thompson, E., & Zook, J. E. (2013). Evaluation of superficial dosimetry between treatment planning system and measurement for several breast cancer treatment techniques. Medical Physics, 40(1), 011714. doi:10.1118/1.4770285
• Gopalakrishnan, Z., Nair, R. K., Raghukumar, P., Bhasi, S., & Menon, S. V. (2021). Comparison of skin doses of treated and contralateral breasts during whole breast radiotherapy for different treatment techniques using optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, 20(2), 176-182. doi:10.1017/S1460396920000229
• Lee, J., Poon, I., Balogh, J., Tsao, M., & Barnes, E. (2012). A Review of Radiotherapy for Merkel Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. Journal of Skin Cancer, 2012, 563829. doi:10.1155/2012/563829
• Lo Nigro, C., Denaro, N., Merlotti, A., & Merlano, M. (2017). Head and neck cancer: improving outcomes with a multidisciplinary approach. Cancer Management and Research, 9, 363-371. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S115761
• McLaughlin, P. W., Liss, A. L., Nguyen, P. L., Assimos, D. G., D’Amico, A. V., Gottschalk, A. R., Gustafson, G. S., Keole, S. R., Liauw, S. L., Lloyd, S., Movsas, B., Prestidge, B. R., Showalter, T. N., Taira, A. V., Vapiwala, N., & Davis, B. J. (2017). ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Locally Advanced, High-Risk Prostate Cancer. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 40(1), 1-10. doi:10.1097/coc.0000000000000354
• Moghaddam, B. G., Vahabi-Moghaddam, M., & Sadremomtaz, A. (2013). Evaluation of target dose based on water-equivalent thickness in external beam radiotherapy. Journal of Medical Physics, 38(1), 44-51. doi:10.4103/0971-6203.106605
• Olaciregui-Ruiz, I., Beddar, S., Greer, P., Jornet, N., McCurdy, B., Paiva-Fonseca, G., Mijnheer, B., & Verhaegen, F. (2020). In vivo dosimetry in external beam photon radiotherapy: Requirements and future directions for research, development, and clinical practice. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 15, 108-116. doi:10.1016/j.phro.2020.08.003
• Price, R. A., Jr, Koren, S., Veltchev, I., Hossain, M., Lin, M.-H., Galloway, T., Flanagan, P., Haber, J., & Ma, C.-M. (2014). Planning target volume-to-skin proximity for head-and-neck intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment planning. Practical Radiation Oncology, 4(1), e21-e29. doi:10.1016/j.prro.2013.04.002
• Sarkar, V., Paxton, A., Rassiah, P., Kokeny, K. E., Hitchcock, Y. J., & Salter, B. J. (2020). Evaluation of dose distribution differences from five algorithms implemented in three commercial treatment planning systems for lung SBRT. Journal of Radiosurgery and SBRT, 7(1), 57-66.
• Tai, D. T., Oanh, L. T., Son, N. D., Loan, T. T. H., & Chow, J. C. L. (2019). Dosimetric and Monte Carlo verification of jaws-only IMRT plans calculated by the Collapsed Cone Convolution algorithm for head and neck cancers. Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy, 24(1), 105-114. doi:10.1016/j.rpor.2018.11.004
• Wang, R., Shen, J., Yan, H., Gao, X., Dong, T., Li, S., Wang, P., & Zhou, J. (2022). Dosimetric comparison between intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc therapy in patients of left-sided breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy: CONSORT. Medicine, 101(2), e28427. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000028427
• Wei, J., Meng, L., Hou, X., Qu, C., Wang, B., Xin, Y., & Jiang, X. (2019). Radiation-induced skin reactions: mechanism and treatment. Cancer Management and Research, 11, 167-177. doi:10.2147/CMAR.S188655