4.6 Article

Skin dose assessment at diagnostic and therapeutic photon energies: A Monte Carlo study on TLDs

期刊

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
卷 185, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109502

关键词

Skin dose; Monte Carlo simulation; TLD; Dosimeter size; LiF

资金

  1. Iran's National Elites Foundation (INEF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessment of radiation dose to the skin is crucial in radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging, with dosimeter placement and thickness affecting measured dose. Monte Carlo simulations can accurately calculate dose at intended depth, providing correction factors for TLD responses in various clinical situations.
In radiotherapy but also as a part of quality assurance in diagnostic imaging, assessment of radiation dose to the skin of the patient is of particular importance. While skin dose is recommended to be measured at a reference depth of 70 mu m, in practice in both diagnostic radiology as well as therapeutic applications, the dosimeter is placed on the skin surface, the measured dose depending in large part on dosimeter thickness. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are commonly applied as skin dosimeters, most of the commercial forms being thicker than 140 mu m, also with a density greater than that of soft tissue, accordingly representing in effective point of measurement deeper than 70 mu m. On the other hand, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations can be used to accurately calculate the dose at an intended depth. In this work we first validate our MC simulations, comparison being made with a previously published correction factor for LiF TLD of dimensions 3 x 3 x 0.1 mm3. Then correction factors to convert the dose measured by various commercial LiF-based TLDs (with thicknesses ranging from 0.15 to 1 mm) to skin dose at 70 mu m depth are calculated for RQR reference diagnostic photon spectra and some common MV photon therapy spectra. These results are useful for correction of TLD responses in various clinical situations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据