Abstract
A new slow response radiographic film (Kodak EDR) is compared with a more traditional faster responding dosimetry film (Kodak XV) in an intensity modulated radiation therapy x-ray field. Dose profiles derived from the two films are compared with doses obtained using a radiotherapy dose planning system (Philips-Pinnacle) which calculates planar dose using a collapsed cone convolution algorithm. Comparisons of the dose maps delivered from film with the Pinnacle dose maps are useful to ensure accurate dose delivery. The Pinnacle dose maps agreed with measurement using both film types to within ±3% (in the umbral region) at depths ranging from dmax to 15 cm. Both XV and EDR films can be used to verify IMRT. EDR film is better suited for dosimetry for combined field dose maps due to its useful dose range of 1–5 Gy. We found XV to be more suitable for individual field dose maps (dose range 0–1 Gy) as no scaling of monitor units were required to achieve acceptable optical density response.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wang, X., Spirou, S., LoSasso, T., Stein, J., Chui, C. S., and Mohan, R., Dosimetric verification of intensity modulated field, Med. Phys., 23: 317–27, 1996.
Low, D. A., et al., Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system, Radiother. Oncol., 49: 305–16, 1998.
Papatheodorou, S., Rosenwald, J. C., Zefkili, S., Murillo, M. C., Drouard, J., and Gaboriaud, G., Dose calculation and verification of intensity modulation generated by dynamic multileaf collimators, Med. Phys., 27: 960–71, 2000.
Parsai, H., Phillips, M. H., Cho, P. S., Kippenes, H., Gavin, P., and Axen, D., Verification of dynamic intensity-modulated beam deliveries in canine subjects, Med. Phys., 28: 2198–2208, 2001.
LoSasso, T., Chui, C. S., and Ling, C. C., Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy, Med. Phys., 25: 1919–27, 1998.
Martens, C., Claeys, I., De, Wagter, C., De, Neve, W., The value of radiographic film for the characterization of intensitymodulated beams, Phys. Med. Biol., 47:221–35, 2002.
Ju, S. G., Ahn, Y. C., Huh S. J., and Yeo, I. J., Film dosimetry for intensity modulated radiation therapy: Dosimetric evaluation, Med. Phys., 29: 351–55, 2002.
Cheng, C., and Das, I. J., Dosimetry of high energy photon and electron beams with CEA films, Med. Phys., 23: 1225–32, 1996.
ADAC, User guide, Inverse Planning and IMRT using Pinnacle3, 2000.
Mohan, R., 42th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Radiation Oncology: Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy-Part I: Planning and Delivery, 1–35, 2000.
Ahnesjo, A., Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media, Med. Phys., 16: 577–92, 1989.
Potter, L. D., Chang, S. X., Cullip, T. J., and Siochi, A. C., A quality and efficiency analysis of the IMFASTTM segmentation algorithm in head and neck “step & shoot” IMRT treatments, Med. Phys., 29: 275–83, 2002.
Wu, Y., Yan, D., Sharpe, M. B., Miller, B., and Wong, J. W., Implementing multiple static field delivery for intensity modulated beams, Med. Phys., 28: 2188–97, 2001.
Constantinou, C., Attix, F., and Paluial, B., A solid water phantom material for radiotherapy x-ray and gamma ray beam calibrations, Med Phys., 9: 436–51, 1982.
Zhu, X. R., Jursinic, P. A., Grimm, D. F., Lopez, F., Rownd, J. J., and Gillin, M. T., Evaluation of Kodak EDR2 film for dose verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy delivered by a static multileaf collimator, Med. Phys., 29: 1687–92, 2002.
Williamson, J. F., Khan, F. M., and Sharma, S. C., Film dosimetry of megavoltage photon beams: a practical method of isodensity-to-isodose curve conversion, Med. Phys., 8: 94–8, 1981.
Suchowerska, N., Hoban, P., Davison, A. and Metcalfe, P., Perturbation of radiotherapy beams by radiographic film: measurement and Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Med. Biol., 44: 1755–65, 1999.
Olch, A. J., Dosimetric performance of an enhanced dose range radiographic film for intensity — modulated radiation therapy quality assurance, Med. Phys., 29:2159–68, 2002.
Dogan, N., Leybovich, L. B. and Sethi, A.., Comparative evaluation of Kodak EDR2 and XV2 films for verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy, Phys. Med. Bio., 47: 4121–4130, 2002.
Esthappan, J., Mutic, S., Harms, W. B., Dempsey, J. F. and Low, D. A., Dosimetry of therapeutic photon beams using an extended dose range film, Med. Phys., 29:2438–45, 2002.
Cadman, P., Bassalow, R., Sidhu, N. P. S., Ibbott, G., and Nelson, A.., Dosimetric considerations for validation of a sequential IMRT process with a commercial treatment planning system, Phys. Med. Bio., 47: 3001–10, 2002.
Mohan, R., Arnfield, M., Tons, S., Wu, Q., and Seibers, J., The impact of fluctuations in intensity patterns on the number of monitor units and the quality and accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy, Med. Phys., 27: 1226–37, 2000.
Azcona, J. D., Alfredo, R., Siochi, A. C., Quality assurance in IMRT: Importance of the transmission through jaws for an accurate calculation of absolute doses and relative distributions, Med. Phys., 29: 2169–74, 2002.
AAPM, Report 72 “Basic Applications of multileaf collimators: Report of the AAPM radiation therapy committee task group 50, Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, USA., 2001.
Hansen, V N., Evans, P. M., Budgell, G. J., Mott, J. H. L., Williams, P. C., Brugmans, M. J. P., Wittkamper, F. W., Mijnheer, B. J. and Brown, K., Quality assurance of the dose delivered by small radiation segments, Phys. Med. Biol., 43: 2665–75, 1998.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tangboonduangjit, P., Wu, I., Butson, M. et al. Intensity modulated radiation therapy: Film verification of planar dose maps. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 26, 194–199 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179181
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03179181