4.1 Article

Dose assessment from an online kilovoltage imaging system in radiation therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We have investigated the dosimetric properties of a commercial kilovoltage cone beam computerised tomography (kV-CBCT) system. The kV-CBCT doses were measured in 16 and 32 cm diameter standard cylindrical Perspex computerised tomography (CT) and Rando anthropomorphic phantoms using 125 kVp and 1.0-2.0 mA s per projection. We also measured skin doses using thermoluminescence dosimeters placed on the skin surfaces of prostate cancer patients undergoing kV-kV image matching for daily set-up. The skin doses from kV-kV image matching of prostate cancer patients on the anterior and lateral skin surfaces ranged from 0.03 +/- 0.01 to 0.64 +/- 0.01 cGy depending on the beam filtration and technique factors employed. The mean doses on the Rando phantom ranged from 3.0 +/- 0.1 to 5.1 +/- 0.3 cGy for full-fan scans and from 3.8 +/- 0.1 to 6.6 +/- 0.2 cGy for half-fan scans using 125 kVp and 2 mA s per projection. The isocentre cone beam dose index (CBDI) in the 16 and 32 cm Perspex phantoms is 4.65 and 1.81 cGy, respectively (using a 0.6 cm(3) Capintec PR06C Farmer chamber) for full-fan scans, and the corresponding normalised CBDIs are 0.72 and 0.28 cGy/100 mA s, respectively. The mean weighted CBDIs are 4.93 and 2.14 cGy, and the normalised weighted CBDIs are 0.76 and 0.33 cGy/100 mA s for the 16 and 32 cm phantoms, respectively (full-fan scans). The normalised weighted CBDI for the half-fan scan is 0.41 cGy/100 mA s for the 32 cm diameter phantom. All measurements of the CBDI using the 0.6 cm(3) Farmer chamber are within 2-5% of measurements taken with the 100 mmCT chamber. The CBDI technique and definitions can be used to benchmark CBCT systems and to provide estimates of imaging doses to patients undergoing on-board imager (OBI)/CBCT image guided radiation therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available