Cargando…

Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators

The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric properties of small field electron beams shaped by circular Cerrobend blocks and stainless steel tubular applicators. Percentage depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors of small‐size circular fields from 2 to 5 cm diameter, obtaine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Di Venanzio, Cristina, Marinelli, Marco, Tonnetti, Alessia, Verona‐Rinati, Gianluca, Bagalà, Paolo, Falco, Maria Daniela, Guerra, Antonio Stefano, Pimpinella, Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689975/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25679175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5186
_version_ 1783279500479430656
author Di Venanzio, Cristina
Marinelli, Marco
Tonnetti, Alessia
Verona‐Rinati, Gianluca
Bagalà, Paolo
Falco, Maria Daniela
Guerra, Antonio Stefano
Pimpinella, Maria
author_facet Di Venanzio, Cristina
Marinelli, Marco
Tonnetti, Alessia
Verona‐Rinati, Gianluca
Bagalà, Paolo
Falco, Maria Daniela
Guerra, Antonio Stefano
Pimpinella, Maria
author_sort Di Venanzio, Cristina
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric properties of small field electron beams shaped by circular Cerrobend blocks and stainless steel tubular applicators. Percentage depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors of small‐size circular fields from 2 to 5 cm diameter, obtained either by tubular applicators and Cerrobend blocks, were measured for 6, 10, and 15 MeV electron beam energies. All measurements were performed using a PTW microDiamond 60019 premarket prototype. An overall similar behavior between the two collimating systems can be observed in terms of PDD and beam profiles. However, Cerrobend collimators produce a higher bremsstrahlung background under irradiation with high‐energy electrons. In such irradiation condition, larger output factors are observed for tubular applicators. Similar dosimetric properties are observed using circular Cerrobend blocks and stainless steel tubular applicators at lower beam energies. However, Cerrobend collimators allow the delivery of specific beam shapes, conformed to the target area. On the other hand, in high‐energy irradiation conditions, tubular applicators produce a lower bremsstrahlung contribution, leading to lower doses outside the target volume. In addition, the higher output factors observed at high energies for tubular applicators lead to reduced treatment times. PACS number: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689975
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56899752018-04-02 Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators Di Venanzio, Cristina Marinelli, Marco Tonnetti, Alessia Verona‐Rinati, Gianluca Bagalà, Paolo Falco, Maria Daniela Guerra, Antonio Stefano Pimpinella, Maria J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Measurements The purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric properties of small field electron beams shaped by circular Cerrobend blocks and stainless steel tubular applicators. Percentage depth dose curves, beam profiles, and output factors of small‐size circular fields from 2 to 5 cm diameter, obtained either by tubular applicators and Cerrobend blocks, were measured for 6, 10, and 15 MeV electron beam energies. All measurements were performed using a PTW microDiamond 60019 premarket prototype. An overall similar behavior between the two collimating systems can be observed in terms of PDD and beam profiles. However, Cerrobend collimators produce a higher bremsstrahlung background under irradiation with high‐energy electrons. In such irradiation condition, larger output factors are observed for tubular applicators. Similar dosimetric properties are observed using circular Cerrobend blocks and stainless steel tubular applicators at lower beam energies. However, Cerrobend collimators allow the delivery of specific beam shapes, conformed to the target area. On the other hand, in high‐energy irradiation conditions, tubular applicators produce a lower bremsstrahlung contribution, leading to lower doses outside the target volume. In addition, the higher output factors observed at high energies for tubular applicators lead to reduced treatment times. PACS number: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5689975/ /pubmed/25679175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5186 Text en © 2015 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Measurements
Di Venanzio, Cristina
Marinelli, Marco
Tonnetti, Alessia
Verona‐Rinati, Gianluca
Bagalà, Paolo
Falco, Maria Daniela
Guerra, Antonio Stefano
Pimpinella, Maria
Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators
title Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators
title_full Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators
title_fullStr Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators
title_short Comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by Cerrobend and tubular applicators
title_sort comparison between small radiation therapy electron beams collimated by cerrobend and tubular applicators
topic Radiation Measurements
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689975/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25679175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5186
work_keys_str_mv AT divenanziocristina comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT marinellimarco comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT tonnettialessia comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT veronarinatigianluca comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT bagalapaolo comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT falcomariadaniela comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT guerraantoniostefano comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators
AT pimpinellamaria comparisonbetweensmallradiationtherapyelectronbeamscollimatedbycerrobendandtubularapplicators