The Exradin W1 response is energy independent for high energy x-rays and electron beams, and only one calibration coefficient is needed. A temperature correction factor should be applied to keep uncertainties around 2% for absolute dose measurements and around 1% for relative measurements in high-energy photon and electron beams. The Exradin W1 scintillator is an excellent alternative to detectors such as diodes for relative dose measurements.

An extensive set of benchmark measurement of PDDs and beam profiles was performed in a heterogeneous layer phantom, including a lung equivalent heterogeneity, by means of several detectors and compared against the predicted dose values by different calculation algorithms in two treatment planning systems. PDDs were measured with TLDs, plane parallel and cylindrical ionization chambers and beam profiles with films. Additionally, Monte Carlo simulations by means of the PENELOPE code were performed. Four different field sizes (10 x 10, 5 x 5, 2 x 2, and 1 x 1 cm2) and two lung equivalent materials (CIRS, p(w)e=0.195 and St. Bartholomew Hospital, London, p(w)e=0.244-0.322) were studied. The performance of four correction-based algorithms and one based on convolution-superposition was analyzed. The correction-based algorithms were the Batho, the Modified Batho, and the Equivalent TAR implemented in the Cadplan (Varian) treatment planning system and the TMS Pencil Beam from the Helax-TMS (Nucletron) treatment planning system. The convolution-superposition algorithm was the Collapsed Cone implemented in the Helax-TMS. The only studied calculation methods that correlated successfully with the measured values with a 2% average inside all media were the Collapsed Cone and the Monte Carlo simulation. The biggest difference between the predicted and the delivered dose in the beam axis was found for the EqTAR algorithm inside the CIRS lung equivalent material in a 2 x 2 cm2 18 MV x-ray beam. In these conditions, average and maximum difference against the TLD measurements were 32% and 39%, respectively. In the water equivalent part of the phantom every algorithm correctly predicted the dose (within 2%) everywhere except very close to the interfaces where differences up to 24% were found for 2 x 2 cm2 18 MV photon beams. Consistent values were found between the reference detector (ionization chamber in water and TLD in lung) and Monte Carlo simulations, yielding minimal differences (0.4%+/-1.2%). The penumbra broadening effect in low density media was not predicted by any of the correction-based algorithms, and the only one that matched the experimental values and the Monte Carlo simulations within the estimated uncertainties was the Collapsed Cone Algorithm.

We found no correlation between the gamma index and the clinical impact of a discrepancy for any of the gamma index evaluation possibilities (global, local, 2D, or 3D). Some of the tests yielded false positives or false negatives in a per-beam gamma analysis. However, they were correctly accounted for in a DVH analysis. We also showed that 3DVH software is reliable for our tests, and is a viable method for correlating planar discrepancies with clinical relevance by comparing the measured DVH of target and OAR's with clinical tolerance.

The feasibility of dual bias dual metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) for entrance in vivo dose measurements in high energy x-rays beams (18 MV) was investigated. A comparison with commercially available diodes for in vivo dosimetry for the same energy range was performed. As MOSFETs are sold without an integrated build-up cap, different caps were tested: 3 cm bolus, 2 cm bolus, 2 cm hemispherical cap of a water equivalent material (Plastic Water) and a metallic hemispherical cap. This metallic build-up cap is the same as the one that is mounted on the in vivo diode used in this study. Intrinsic precision and response linearity with dose were determined for MOSFETs and diodes. They were then calibrated for entrance in vivo dosimetry in an 18 MV x-ray beam. Calibration included determination of the calibration factor in standard reference conditions and of the correction factors (CF) when irradiation conditions differed from those of reference. Correction factors for field size, source surface distance, wedge, and temperature were determined. Sensitivity variation with accumulated dose and the lifetime of both types of detectors were also studied. Finally, the uncertainties of entrance in vivo measurements using MOSFET and diodes were discussed. Intrinsic precision for MOSFETs for the high sensitivity mode was 0.7% (1 s.d.) as compared to the 0.05% (1 s.d.) for the studied diodes. The linearity of the response with dose was excellent (R2 = 1.000) for both in vivo dosimetry systems. The absolute values of the studied correction factors for the MOSFETs when covered by the different build-up caps were of the same order of those determined for the diodes. However, the uncertainties of the correction factors for MOSFETs were significantly higher than for diodes. Although the intrinsic precision and the uncertainty on the CF was higher for MOSFET detectors than for the studied diodes, the total uncertainty in entrance dose determination, once they were calibrated, was of 2.9% (1 s.d.) while for diodes it was 2.0% (1 s.d.). MOSFETs showed no sensitivity variation with accumulated dose or temperature. When used in the high sensitivity mode, after approximately 50 Gy of accumulated dose MOSFETs could no longer be used as radiation dosimeters. In conclusion, MOSFETs can be used for entrance in vivo dosimetry in high energy x-rays beams if covered by an appropriate build-up cap. Metallic build-up caps, such as those used for in vivo diodes, have the advantage of greater patient comfort and less perturbation of the treatment field than the other build-up caps tested, while keeping the correction factors of the same order.

The main objective of the ESTRO core curricula is to update and harmonise training of the radiation oncologists, medical physicists and RTTs in Europe. It is recommended that the authorities in charge of the respective training programmes throughout Europe harmonise their own curricula according to the common framework.