AAPM TG 191: Clinical use of luminescent dosimeters: TLDs and OSLDs

Kry, Stephen F; Alvarez, P.; Cygler, Joanna; DeWerd, Larry A.; Howell, Rebecca M.; Meeks, Sanford L.; O’Daniel, J; Reft, Chester S.; Sawakuchi, Gabriel O.; Yukihara, E.G.; Mihailidis, Dimitris

doi:10.1002/mp.13839

Cited by 131 publications

(159 citation statements)

References 185 publications

(503 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

149

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) are well suited for the measurement of dose to CIEDs. TLD use is detailed in the upcoming TG‐191 report, including special considerations for out‐of‐field applications. Although most out‐of‐field considerations are minor, the soft out‐of‐field photon spectrum causes an overresponse of less than 10%.…”

Section: Dose Assessment Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203^†

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac devices (implantable cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators) has been a great practical and procedural challenge in radiation oncology practice. Since the publication of the AAPM TG‐34 in 1994, large bodies of literature and case reports have been published about different kinds of radiation effects on modern technology implantable cardiac devices and patient management before, during, and after radiotherapy. This task group report provides the framework that analyzes the potential failure modes of these devices and lays out the methodology for patient management in a comprehensive and concise way, in every step of the entire radiotherapy process.

show abstract

Section: Dose Assessment Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203^†

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Task Group 191 is charged with producing recommendations for OSLD-based in vivo dosimetry [9] . This report introduces the concept of an “uncertainty budget” for OSLD-based IVD, which includes various well-studied physical dependencies added in quadrature but few clinical ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Group 191 report explores the use of OSLDs and TLDs in clinical IVD, characterizing several uncertainty parameters in a hypothetical "uncertainty budget." The report proposes several strata of uncertainty based on different calibration procedures and clinical implementation ranging from approximately 1-5% [9].…”

Section: The Forthcoming American Association Of Physicists In Medicimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors have suggested accuracy of OSLD-based IVD between ±0.5% and ±3% depending on calibration procedures and treatment technique [7] , [8] . The forthcoming American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 191 report explores the use of OSLDs and TLDs in clinical IVD, characterizing several uncertainty parameters in a hypothetical “uncertainty budget.” The report proposes several strata of uncertainty based on different calibration procedures and clinical implementation ranging from approximately 1–5% [9] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric impact of placement errors in optically stimulated luminescent in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy

Tariq

Gomez

Riegel

2019

Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Studies have suggested that optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) can be used for in vivo dosimetry of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Clinical uncertainties such as placement error have not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this work was to measure OSLD placement error in a clinical sample and analyze its dosimetric impact. Methods and materials: The analysis consisted of three parts: first, quantification of placement error in a clinical sample of 128 patients yielding 293 cone-beam CT (CBCT) with visible OSLDs registered to the treatment plan; Second, correlation of placement error and clinical OSLD measurements; third, simulation of dosimeter placement in the treatment plan and correlation of recalculated dose with placement error. Results: In the first analysis, average placement error was 9.7 ± 9.5 mm. In the second analysis, placement error and measured-to-planned dose agreement yielded no correlation (R 2 = 0.02) for a subsample of 77 CBCTs of 55 head-and-neck patients. Average placement error was 7.0 ± 6.0 mm. Several factors, including image-guided shifts, introduced uncharacterized uncertainty to the measured-to-planned dose agreement. The third analysis isolated placement error from these other effects. Average dosimetric error was −2.4 ± 19.3%. Simulated dosimetric impact was weakly correlated with placement error (R 2 = 0.39). Removing outliers reduced the average dosimetric error to −2.1 ± 10.9%, marginally improving the correlation (R 2 = 0.44). Conclusion: Placement error can substantially impact measured-to-planned dose agreement of OSLDs in high gradient regions, demonstrating the criticality of accurate dosimeter placement for IMRT and VMAT treatments.

show abstract

“…The counts acquired from the nanoDot OSL dosimeters irradiated by respiratory-gated radiotherapy with SyncTraX were converted into absolute doses using the calibration curve. To measure the absolute dose using nanoDot OSL dosimeters, the high efficiency mode was used in a controlled setting because the measurement was considered for clinical application 23 . The measured absolute dose (D) using a nanoDot OSL dosimeter was calculated using the following equation;…”

Section: G |mentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel dynamic robotic moving phantom system for patient‐specific quality assurance in real‐time tumor‐tracking radiotherapy

Shiinoki

Fujii

Fujimoto

et al. 2020

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we assess a developed novel dynamic moving phantom system that can reproduce patient three-dimensional (3D) tumor motion and patient anatomy, and perform patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of respiratory-gated radiotherapy using SyncTraX. Three patients with lung cancer were enrolled in a study. 3D printing technology was adopted to obtain individualized lung phantoms using CT images. A water-equivalent phantom (WEP) with the 3D-printed plate lung phantom was set at the tip of the robotic arm. The log file that recorded the 3D positions of the lung tumor was used as the input to the dynamic robotic moving phantom. The WEP was driven to track 3D respiratory motion. Respiratory-gated radiotherapy was performed for driving the WEP. The tracking accuracy was calculated as the differences between the actual and measured positions. For the absolute dose and dose distribution, the differences between the planned and measured doses were calculated. The differences between the planned and measured absolute doses were <1.0% at the isocenter and <4.0% for the lung region. The gamma pass ratios of γ 3 mm/3% and γ 2 mm/2% under the conditions of gating and no-gating were 99.9 ± 0.1% and 90.1 ± 8.5%, and 97.5 ± 0.9% and 68.6 ± 17.8%, respectively, for all the patients. Furthermore, for all the patients, the mean ± SD of the root mean square values of the positional error were 0.11 ± 0.04 mm, 0.33 ± 0.04 mm, and 0.20 ± 0.04 mm in the LR, AP, and SI directions, respectively. Finally, we showed that patient-specific QA of respiratory-gated radiotherapy using SyncTraX can be performed under realistic conditions using the moving phantom.

show abstract

AAPM TG 191: Clinical use of luminescent dosimeters: TLDs and OSLDs

Cited by 131 publications

References 185 publications

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203^†

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203^†

Dosimetric impact of placement errors in optically stimulated luminescent in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy

A novel dynamic robotic moving phantom system for patient‐specific quality assurance in real‐time tumor‐tracking radiotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

AAPM TG 191: Clinical use of luminescent dosimeters: TLDs and OSLDs

Cited by 131 publications

References 185 publications

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203†

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203†

Dosimetric impact of placement errors in optically stimulated luminescent in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy

A novel dynamic robotic moving phantom system for patient‐specific quality assurance in real‐time tumor‐tracking radiotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203^†

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG‐203^†