Comparison of Dosimetry Protocols for Electron Beam Radiotherapy Calibrations and Measurement Uncertainties

This paper presents guidelines for the calibration of radiation beams that were issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA TRS 398), the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM TG 51) and the German task group (DIN 6800-2). These protocols are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water in a standard laboratory’s reference quality beam, where the previous protocols were based on air kerma standards. This study aims to determine uncertainties in dosimetry for electron beam radiotherapy using internationally established high-energy radiotherapy beam calibration standards. Methods: Dw was determined in 6-, 12- and 18 MeV electron energies under reference conditions using three cylindrical and two plane-parallel ion chambers in concert with the IAEA TRS 398, AAPM TG 51 and DIN 6800-2 absorbed dose protocols. From mean measured Dw values, the ratio TRS 398/TG 51 was found to vary between 0.988 and 1.004, while for the counterpart TRS 398/DIN 6800-2 and TG 51/DIN 6800-2, the variation ranges were 0.991–1.003 and 0.997–1.005, respectively. For the cylindrical chambers, the relative combined uncertainty (k = 1) in absorbed dose measurements was 1.44%, while for the plane-parallel chambers, it ranged from 1.53 to 1.88%. Conclusions: A high degree of consistency was demonstrated among the three protocols. It is suggested that in the use of the presently determined dose conversion factors across the three protocols, dose intercomparisons can be facilitated between radiotherapy centres.

Dosimetric Evaluation of a Set of Specifically Designed Grids for Treating Subcutaneous Superficial Tumor with 6 and 18 MeV Electron Beam External Radiotherapy

Background: Conventional electron beam radiotherapy used for treating superficial cancer tumors suffers from the disadvantage of low skin sparing effect. Furthermore, increasing electron energy for treating deeper-seated tumors leads to significant increase of skin dose. To overcome this, various grids are recommended for electron beam radiotherapy of subcutaneous tumors. However, appropriate grids are required to be designed for decreasing skin dose while delivering uniform high doses to deep-seated superficial tumors. Our goal was to design, examine and propose appropriate grid(s) for optimum electron beam radiotherapy of subcutaneous tumors with the best skin sparing with 6 and 18 MeV energies.Materials and Methods: Relevant dosimetric characteristics were determined and analyzed for five grids manufactured from dry lead having various cavity diameters (1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 cm) and shielded areas (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 cm) among the cavities but the same fraction of cavity/open (68%) and shielded/closed (38%) areas under the grid plates. Isodose distributions and dose profiles resulted from the grids were investigated using EDR2 films and MATLAB software. Results: The grids with 2 and 2.5 cm diameter cavities and 0.4 and 0.5 cm shielded areas were the most appropriate grids for 6 and 18 MeV radiotherapy, respectively. With these grids, the 100% PDDs (percentage depth doses) located at 1.25 and 2.5 cm for an open filed (without the grids) were moved down to 1.87 and 5.4 cm for 6 and 18 MeV energies, respectively. Furthermore, the proposed grids provided the least peak to valley dose variations hence the most uniform doses delivered at their relevant depths of treatment. Conclusions: To decrease the skin dose in 6 and 18 MeV electron beam radiotherapy of superficial subcutaneous tumors, various home-made grids were designed and investigated. The most appropriate grids (having 2 and 2.5 cm cavity diameters for 6 and 18 MeV, respectively) provided the optimum dose delivery for superficial subcutaneous tumors locating around 1.5 and 5 cm depth for 6 and 18 MeV energies. Our comprehensive study provides reliable results that could be considered and developed more for a wider range of MeV electron grid therapies in routine clinical practices.

Determination of effective source to surface distance and cutout factor in small fields in electron beam radiotherapy: A comparison of different dosimeters

Objective: The main purpose of this study is to calculate the effective source to surface distance (SSDeff) of small and large electron fields in 10, 15, and 18 MeV energies, and to investigate the effect of SSD on the cutout factor for electron beams a linear accelerator. The accuracy of different dosimeters is also evaluated.Materials and methods: In the current study, Elekta Precise linear accelerator was used in electron beam energies of 10, 15, and 18 MeV. The measurements were performed in a PTW water phantom (model MP3-M). A Semiflex and Advanced Markus ionization chambers and a Diode E detector were used for dosimetry. SSDeff in 100, 105, 110, 115, and 120 cm SSDs for 1.5 × 1.5 cm2 to 5 × 5 cm2 (small fields) and 6 × 6 cm2 to 20 × 20 cm2 (large fields) field sizes were obtained. The cutout factor was measured for the small fields.Results: SSDeff in small fields is highly dependent on energy and field size and increases with increasing electron beam energy and field size. For large electron fields, with some exceptions for the 20 × 20 cm2 field, this quantity also increases with energy. The SSDeff was increased with increasing beam energy and field size for all three detectors.Conclusion: The SSDeff varies significantly for different field sizes or cutouts. It is recommended that SSDeff be determined for each electron beam size or cutout. Selecting an appropriate dosimetry system can have an effect in determining cutout factor.

Tomotherapy as an Alternative Irradiative Treatment for Complicated Keloids

The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment of complicated keloids with helical tomotherapy (HT) and electron beam radiotherapy. From July 2018 to September 2018, 11 patients with 23 keloid lesions treated with HT were enrolled. Additionally, 11 patients with 20 lesions treated with electron beam radiotherapy in the same period were enrolled. Patients in both groups were treated within 24 h after surgical excision of the keloid lesion with 13.5 Gy in three consecutive daily fractions. The median follow-up period was 15 months. The local control rate was 91.3% and 80% in the HT group and the electron beam group, respectively. No acute adverse effects were observed in either group, but most patients exhibited pigmentation. No radiation-induced cancer occurred in these patients up to the time of this report. Pain and pruritus improved for all patients and more obviously for three patients with complicated keloids treated with HT. The measured surface dose was 103.7–112.5% and 92.8–97.6% of the prescribed dose in the HT group and the electron beam group, respectively. HT can be considered an alternative in cases where it is not feasible to use multiple electron fields, due to encouraging clinical outcomes.