BackgroundTo evaluate the difference of absorbed doses calculated to medium and to water by a Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm based treatment planning system (TPS), and to assess the potential clinical impact to dose prescription.MethodsThirty patients, 10 nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC), 10 lung cancer and 10 bone metastases cases, were selected for this study. For each case, the treatment plan was generated using a commercial MC based TPS and dose was calculated to medium (Dm). The plan was recalculated for dose to water (Dw) using the same Monitor Units (MU) and control points. The differences between Dm and Dw were qualitatively evaluated by dose-volume parameters and by the plan subtraction method. All plans were measured using the MapCheck2, and gamma passing rates were calculated.ResultsFor NPC and Lung cases, the mean differences between Dw and Dm for the targets were less than 2% and the maximum difference was 3.9%. The maximum difference of D2% for the organs at risk (OARs) was 6.7%. The maximum differences between Dw and Dm were as high as 10% in certain high density regions. For bone metastases cases, the mean differences between Dw and Dm for the targets were more than 2.2% and the maximum difference was 7.1%. The differences between Dw and Dm for the OARs were basically negligible. At 3%&3 mm criterion, the gamma passing rate of Dw plan and Dm plan were close (> 94%).ConclusionThe differences between Dw and Dm has little clinical impact for most clinical cases. In bony structures the differences may become clinically significant if the target/OAR is receiving doses close to its tolerance limit which can potentially influence the selection or rejection of a particular plan.

Purpose: To investigate the dosimetric characteristics of a low energy photon intra-operative radiotherapy (IORT) system and explore its potential limitation in clinical application. Methods: A special water phantom, a parallel-plate ionization chamber and an electrometer were used to measure the depth dose rate, isotropy of dose distribution in X/Y plane, dosimetry reproducibility of bare probe and spherical applicators of different size which were used in comparison with the system data. Results: The difference in depth dose rate between the measurement and system data for bare probe is −2.16% ± 1.36%, the range of the relative deviation for isotropy in the X/Y plane is between −1.9% and 2.1%. The difference in depth dose rate, transfer coefficient, isotropy in X/Y plane between the measurement and system data for the whole set of spherical applicators is −10.0% -2.3%, −8.9% -4.2% and −1.6% -2.6%, respectively. Higher surface dose rate and steeper gradient depth dose are observed in smaller spherical applicators. The depth dose rate and isotropy for bare probe and spherical applicators have been shown good reproducibility. The uncertainty of measurement is associated with the positioning accuracy, energy response, noise current and correction function f'(R). Conclusions: Thorough commissioning of the low energy photon IORT system helps us better understand the dosimetry characteristics, verify the system data, obtain adequate data for clinical application and routine quality assurance. The steep gradient depth dose and limited treatment range may restrain its potential in clinical application.