Cargando…

Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks

INTRODUCTION: In radiation therapy centers across Iran, protection of normal tissues is usually accomplished by either Cerrobend or lead block shielding. In this study, the influence of these two shielding methods on central axis dose distribution of photon beam a Cobalt unit was investigated in cli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farajollahi, A. R., Bouzarjomehri, F., Kiani, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26157733
_version_ 1782378002646040576
author Farajollahi, A. R.
Bouzarjomehri, F.
Kiani, M.
author_facet Farajollahi, A. R.
Bouzarjomehri, F.
Kiani, M.
author_sort Farajollahi, A. R.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: In radiation therapy centers across Iran, protection of normal tissues is usually accomplished by either Cerrobend or lead block shielding. In this study, the influence of these two shielding methods on central axis dose distribution of photon beam a Cobalt unit was investigated in clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All measurements were performed for 60Co γ-ray beams and the Cerrobend blocks were fabricated by commercial Cerrobend materials. Standard lead block shields belonged to Cobalt unit. Data was collected through a calibrated ionization chamber, relative dosimetry systems and a TLD dosimetery. RESULTS: Results of the percent depth dose (PDD) measurements at depths of 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 cm for 23 different field sizes of patients with head and neck cancer showed no significant differences between lead and Cerrobend shielding methods. Measurement results of absolute dosimetry in depths of 1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 cm also showed no significant differences between these two shielding methods. The same results were obtained by TLD dosimetry on patient skin. CONCLUSION: Use of melt shielding methods is a very easy and fast shield-making technique with no differences in PDD, absolute and skin dose between lead and Cerrobend block shielding methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4479389
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44793892015-07-08 Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks Farajollahi, A. R. Bouzarjomehri, F. Kiani, M. J Biomed Phys Eng Original Article INTRODUCTION: In radiation therapy centers across Iran, protection of normal tissues is usually accomplished by either Cerrobend or lead block shielding. In this study, the influence of these two shielding methods on central axis dose distribution of photon beam a Cobalt unit was investigated in clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All measurements were performed for 60Co γ-ray beams and the Cerrobend blocks were fabricated by commercial Cerrobend materials. Standard lead block shields belonged to Cobalt unit. Data was collected through a calibrated ionization chamber, relative dosimetry systems and a TLD dosimetery. RESULTS: Results of the percent depth dose (PDD) measurements at depths of 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 cm for 23 different field sizes of patients with head and neck cancer showed no significant differences between lead and Cerrobend shielding methods. Measurement results of absolute dosimetry in depths of 1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 cm also showed no significant differences between these two shielding methods. The same results were obtained by TLD dosimetry on patient skin. CONCLUSION: Use of melt shielding methods is a very easy and fast shield-making technique with no differences in PDD, absolute and skin dose between lead and Cerrobend block shielding methods. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 2015-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4479389/ /pubmed/26157733 Text en © 2015: Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Farajollahi, A. R.
Bouzarjomehri, F.
Kiani, M.
Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks
title Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks
title_full Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks
title_fullStr Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks
title_short Comparison between Clinically Used Irregular Fields Shielded by Cerrobend and Standard Lead Blocks
title_sort comparison between clinically used irregular fields shielded by cerrobend and standard lead blocks
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479389/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26157733
work_keys_str_mv AT farajollahiar comparisonbetweenclinicallyusedirregularfieldsshieldedbycerrobendandstandardleadblocks
AT bouzarjomehrif comparisonbetweenclinicallyusedirregularfieldsshieldedbycerrobendandstandardleadblocks
AT kianim comparisonbetweenclinicallyusedirregularfieldsshieldedbycerrobendandstandardleadblocks