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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |