4.6 Article

On the development of a VIPARnd radiotherapy 3D polymer gel dosimeter

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 3, 页码 986-1008

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa5089

关键词

VIC; VIPAR(CT); 3D polymer gel dosimetry; VIPAR(nd); VIP; radiotherapy dosimetry; CT 3D gel dosimetry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work presents an improvement of the VIPARnd ('nd' stands for `normoxic, double', or VIP) polymer gel dosimeter. The gel composition was altered by increasing the concentration of the monomeric components, N-vinylpyrrolidone (NVP) and N,N'-methylenebisacrylamide (MBA), in co-solvent solutions. The optimal composition (VIPAR(CT), where `CT' stands for computed tomography, or VIC) comprised: 17% NVP, 8% MBA, 12% t-BuOH, 7.5% gelatine, 0.007% ascorbic acid, 0.0008% CuSO4 x 5H(2)O and 0.02% hydroquinone. The following characteristics of VIC were achieved: (i) linear dose range of 0.9-30 Gy, (ii) saturation for radiation doses of over 50 Gy, (iii) threshold dose of about 0.5 Gy, (iv) dose sensitivity of 0.171 Gy-1 s-1, which is roughly 2.2 times higher than that of VIP (for nuclear magnetic resonance measurements). It was also found that VIC is dose-rateindependent, and its dose response does not alter if the radiation source is changed from electrons to photons for external beam radiotherapy. The gel responded similarly to irradiation with small changes in radiation energy but was sensitive to larger energy changes. The VIC gel retained temporal stability from 20 h until at least 10 d after irradiation, whereas spatial stability was retained from 20 h until at least 6 d after irradiation. The scheme adopted for VIC manufacturing yields repeatable gels in terms of radiation dose response. The VIC was also shown to perform better than VIP using x-ray computed tomography as a readout method; the dose sensitivity of VIC (0.397 HU Gy-1) was 1.5 times higher than that of VIP. Also, the dose resolution of VIC was better than that of VIP in the whole dose range examined.

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