No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Angular dependence of the response of the nanoDot OSLD system for measurements at depth in clinical megavoltage beams
1. P. A. Jursinic, “Characterization of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, for clinical dosimetric measurements,” Med. Phys. 34, 4594–4604 (2007).
2. C. S. Reft, “The energy dependence and dose response of a commercial optically stimulated luminescent detector for kilovoltage photon, megavoltage photon, and electron, proton, and carbon beams,” Med. Phys. 36, 1690–1699 (2009).
3. J. Aguirre, P. Alvarez, C. Amador, A. Tailor, D. Followill, and G. Ibbott, “Validation of the commissioning of an optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) system for remote dosimetry audits,” Med. Phys. 37, 3428 (2010).
4. P. A. Jursinic, “Changes in optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) dosimetric characteristics with accumulated dose,” Med. Phys. 37, 132–140 (2010).
5. L. Dunn, J. Lye, J. Kenny, J. Lehmann, I. Williams, and T. Kron, “Commissioning of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for use in radiotherapy,” Radiat. Meas. 51–52, 31–39 (2013).
6. P. A. Jursinic and C. J. Yahnke, “In vivo dosimetry with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, compared to diodes; the effects of buildup cap thickness and fabrication material,” Med. Phys. 38, 5432–5440 (2011).
8. E. G. Yukihara, G. Mardirossian, M. Mirzasadeghi, S. Guduru, and S. Ahmad, “Evaluation of Al2O3:C optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters for passive dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams in radiotherapy,” Med. Phys. 35, 260–269 (2008).
9. B. Hu, Y. Wang, and W. Zealey, “Performance of Al2O3:C optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters for clinical radiation therapy applications,” Australas Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 32, 226–232 (2009).
10. J. V. Valiyaparambil and S. M. Mallya, “Characterization of an optically stimulated dosimeter for dentomaxillofacial dosimetry,” Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. Endod. 112, 793–797 (2011).
11. A. Viamonte, L. A. da Rosa, L. A. Buckley, A. Cherpak, and J. E. Cygler, “Radiotherapy dosimetry using a commercial OSL system,” Med. Phys. 35, 1261–1266 (2008).
12. I. Mrčela, T. Bokulić, J. Izewska, M. Budanec, A. Fröbe, and Z. Kusić, “Optically stimulated luminescence in vivo dosimetry for radiotherapy: Physical characterization and clinical measurements in (60)Co beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 6065–6082 (2011).
13. E. G. Yukihara, E. M. Yoshimura, T. D. Lindstrom, S. Ahmad, K. K. Taylor, and G. Mardirossian, “High-precision dosimetry for radiotherapy using the optically stimulated luminescence technique and thin Al2O3:C dosimeters,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 5619–5628 (2005).
14. E. G. Yukihara, P. B. R. Gasparian, G. O. Sawakuchi, C. Ruan, S. Ahmad, C. Kalavagunta, W. J. Clouse, N. Sahoo, and U. Titt, “Medical applications of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs),” Radiat. Meas. 45, 658–662 (2010).
15. D. S. Followill, D. R. Evans, C. Cherry, A. Molineu, G. Fisher, W. F. Hanson, and G. S. Ibbott, “Design, development, and implementation of the radiological physics center's pelvis and thorax anthropomorphic quality assurance phantoms,” Med. Phys. 34, 2070–2076 (2007).
16. J. Lye, L. Dunn, J. Kenny, J. Lehmann, T. Kron, C. Oliver, D. Butler, A. Alves, P. Johnston, R. Franich, and I. Williams, “Remote auditing of radiotherapy facilities using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters,” Med. Phys. 41(3), 032102 (10pp.) (2014).
18. J. R. Kerns, S. F. Kry, N. Sahoo, D. S. Followill, and G. S. Ibbott, “Angular dependence of the nanoDot OSL dosimeter,” Med. Phys. 38, 3955–3962 (2011).
19. D. W. Kim, W. K. Chung, D. O. Shin, M. Yoon, U. J. Hwang, J. E. Rah, H. Jeong, S. Y. Lee, D. Shin, S. B. Lee, and S. Y. Park, “Dose response of commercially available optically stimulated luminescent detector, Al2O3:C for megavoltage photons and electrons,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 149, 101–108 (2012).
21. P. Charles, S. Crowe, T. Kairn, J. Kenny, J. Lehmann, J. Lye, L. Dunn, B. Hill, R. Knight, and C. Langton, “The effect of very small air gaps on small field dosimetry,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 6947 (2012).
22. M. S. Akselrod, V. S. Kortov, and E. A. Gorelova, “Preparation and properties of alpha-Al2O3:C,” Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 47, 159–164 (1993).
23. J. E. Lye, D. J. Butler, G. Ramanathan, and R. D. Franich, “Spectral differences in 6 MV beams with matched PDDs and the effect on chamber response,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 7599–7614 (2012).
Article metrics loading...
The purpose of this investigation was to assess the angular dependence of a commercial optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) dosimetry system in MV x-ray beams at depths beyondd max and to find ways to mitigate this dependence for measurements in phantoms.
Two special holders were designed which allow a dosimeter to be rotated around the center of its sensitive volume. The dosimeter's sensitive volume is a disk, 5 mm in diameter and 0.2 mm thick. The first holder rotates the disk in the traditional way. It positions the disk perpendicular to the beam (gantry pointing to the floor) in the initial position (0°). When the holder is rotated the angle of the disk towards the beam increases until the disk is parallel with the beam (“edge on,” 90°). This is referred to as Setup 1. The second holder offers a new, alternative measurement position. It positions the disk parallel to the beam for all angles while rotating around its center (Setup 2). Measurements with five to ten dosimeters per point were carried out for 6 MV at 3 and 10 cm depth. Monte Carlo simulations using GEANT4 were performed to simulate the response of the active detector material for several angles. Detector and housing were simulated in detail based on microCT data and communications with the manufacturer. Various material compositions and an all-water geometry were considered.
For the traditional Setup 1 the response of the OSLD dropped on average by 1.4% ± 0.7% (measurement) and 2.1% ± 0.3% (Monte Carlo simulation) for the 90° orientation compared to 0°. Monte Carlo simulations also showed a strong dependence of the effect on the composition of the sensitive layer. Assuming the layer to completely consist of the active material (Al2O3) results in a 7% drop in response for 90° compared to 0°. Assuming the layer to be completely water, results in a flat response within the simulation uncertainty of about 1%. For the new Setup 2, measurements and Monte Carlo simulations found the angular dependence of the dosimeter to be below 1% and within the measurement uncertainty.
The dosimeter system exhibits a small angular dependence of approximately 2% which needs to be considered for measurements involving other than normal incident beams angles. This applies in particular to clinicalin vivo measurements where the orientation of the dosimeter is dictated by clinical circumstances and cannot be optimized as otherwise suggested here. When measuring in a phantom, the proposed new setup should be considered. It changes the orientation of the dosimeter so that a coplanar beam arrangement always hits the disk shaped detector material from the thin side and thereby reduces the angular dependence of the response to within the measurement uncertainty of about 1%. This improvement makes the dosimeter more attractive for clinical measurements with multiple coplanar beams in phantoms, as the overall measurement uncertainty is reduced. Similarly, phantom based postal audits can transition from the traditional TLD to the more accurate and convenient OSLD.
Full text loading...
Most read this month