Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the<scp>AAPM</scp>Task Group No. 43 Report: Joint recommendations by the<scp>AAPM</scp>and<scp>GEC</scp>‐<scp>ESTRO</scp>

Rivard, Mark J.; Ballester, F.; Butler, Wayne M.; DeWerd, Larry A.; Ibbott, Geoffrey S.; Meigooni, Ali S.; Melhus, Christopher S.; Mitch, Michael G.; Nath, Ravinder; Papagiannis, Panagiotis

doi:10.1002/mp.12430

Cited by 59 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 94 publications

(327 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…134 The use of TLD for brachytherapy have been given in a number of publications; the last review was in the most recent update of the TG-43 report. 135 In these studies it was possible to achieve an uncertainty of 2.2% (1-sigma), yielding a precise result. In general though, greater uncertainties are associated with non-external beam applications.…”

Section: D Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…TLD have been used to measure the radial dose function, g ( r ), and the anisotropy function, F ( r , θ ), of various sources . The use of TLD for brachytherapy have been given in a number of publications; the last review was in the most recent update of the TG‐43 report . In these studies it was possible to achieve an uncertainty of 2.2% (1‐sigma), yielding a precise result.…”

Section: Specific Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Kry

Alvarez

Cygler³

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

Self Cite

134

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) are practical, accurate, and precise tools for point dosimetry in medical physics applications. The charges of Task Group 191 were to detail the methodologies for practical and optimal luminescence dosimetry in a clinical setting. This includes: (a) to review the variety of TLD/OSLD materials available, including features and limitations of each; (b) to outline the optimal steps to achieve accurate and precise dosimetry with luminescent detectors and to evaluate the uncertainty induced when less rigorous procedures are used; (c) to develop consensus guidelines on the optimal use of luminescent dosimeters for clinical practice; and (d) to develop guidelines for special medically relevant uses of TLDs/OSLDs such as mixed photon/neutron field dosimetry, particle beam dosimetry, and skin dosimetry. While this report provides general guidelines for TLD and OSLD processes, the report provides specific details for TLD‐100 and nanoDotTM dosimeters because of their prevalence in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: D Brachytherapymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Specific Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kry

Alvarez

Cygler³

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

Self Cite

134

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…described, reporting organ doses in terms of a single point, or a maximal small volume dose assessment is not appropriate considering an inhomogeneous dose distribution, even in the event of a steep gradient over the high‐risk clinical target volume (HR‐CTV) and OARs near the source 15. In this study, all physical HDR plan doses (D2cc and D0.1 cc) were calculated based upon the AAPM TG 43 formula49, 50, 51 without heterogeneity‐corrections. The uncertainties of TG 43 dose calculations have been validated through a model‐based dose calculation algorithm that accounts for tissue and applicator heterogeneity 52.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient's specific integration of OAR doses (D2 cc) from EBRT and 3D image‐guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer

Gelover

Katherine

Mart

et al. 2018

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to assess the recommended DVH parameter (e.g., D2 cc) addition method used for combining EBRT and HDR plans, against a reference dataset generated from an EQD2‐based DVH addition method. A revised DVH parameter addition method using EBRT DVH parameters derived from each patient's plan was proposed and also compared with the reference dataset. Thirty‐one biopsy‐proven cervical cancer patients who received EBRT and HDR brachytherapy were retrospectively analyzed. A parametrial and/or paraaortic EBRT boost were clinically performed on 13 patients. Ten IMRT and 21 3DCRT plans were determined. Two different HDR techniques for each HDR plan were analyzed. Overall D2 cc and D0.1 cc OAR doses in EQD2 were statistically analyzed for three different DVH parameter addition methods: a currently recommended method, a proposed revised method, and a reference DVH addition method. The overall D2 ccEQD 2 values for all rectum, bladder, and sigmoid for a conformal, volume optimization HDR plan generated using the current DVH parameter addition method were significantly underestimated on average −5 to −8% when compared to the values obtained from the reference DVH addition technique (P < 0.01). The revised DVH parameter addition method did not present statistical differences with the reference technique (P > 0.099). When PM boosts were considered, there was an even greater average underestimation of −8~−10% for overall OAR doses of conformal HDR plans when using the current DVH parameter addition technique as compared to the revised DVH parameter addition. No statistically significant differences were found between the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques (P > 0.3148). It is recommended that the overall D2 cc EBRT doses are obtained from each patient's EBRT plan.

show abstract

“…Determination of absorbed dose to water around BT sources in absolute units of Gy is required to verify Monte Carlo (MC) single-source dosimetry data before use in treatment planning. 12,13 The currently recommended dosimetry system is lithium fluoride thermoluminescent dosimeters (LiF TLD) calibrated in 60 Co or 6 MV beams using external-beam protocols. 14,15 Although these detectors have low absorbed-dose energy dependence, they have an intrinsic energy dependence at low photon energies compared to a high-energy photon calibration beam.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of a synthetic diamond detector response in kilovoltage photon beams

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose An important characteristic of radiation dosimetry detectors is their energy response which consists of absorbed‐dose and intrinsic energy responses. The former can be characterized using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, whereas the latter (i.e., detector signal per absorbed dose to detector) is extracted from experimental data. Such a characterization is especially relevant when detectors are used in nonrelative measurements at a beam quality that differs from the calibration beam quality. Having in mind the possible application of synthetic diamond detectors (microDiamond PTW 60019, Freiburg, Germany) for nonrelative dosimetry of low‐energy brachytherapy (BT) beams, we determined their intrinsic and absorbed‐dose energy responses in 25–250 kV beams relative to a 60Co beam, which is usually the reference beam quality for detector calibration in radiotherapy. Material and Methods Three microDiamond detectors and, for comparison, two silicon diodes (PTW 60017) were calibrated in terms of air‐kerma free in air in six x‐ray beam qualities (from 25 to 250 kV) and in terms of absorbed dose to water in a 60Co beam at the national metrology laboratory in Sweden. The PENELOPE/penEasy MC radiation transport code was used to calculate the absorbed‐dose energy response of the detectors (modeled based on blueprints) relative to air and water depending on calibration conditions. The MC results were used to extract the relative intrinsic energy response of the detectors from the overall energy response. Measurements using an independent setup with a single ophthalmic BEBIG I25.S16 125I BT seed (effective photon energy of 28 keV) were used as a qualitative check of the extracted intrinsic energy response correction factors. Additionally, the impact of the thickness of the active volume as well as the presence of extra‐cameral components on the absorbed‐dose energy response of a microDiamond detector was studied using MC simulations. Results The relative intrinsic energy response of the microDiamond detectors was higher by a factor of 2 in 25 and 50 kV beams compared to the 60Co beam. The variation in the relative intrinsic energy response of silicon diodes was within 10% over the investigated photon energy range. The use of relative intrinsic energy response correction factors improved the agreement among the absorbed dose to water values determined using microDiamond detectors and silicon diodes, as well as with the TG‐43 formalism‐based calculations for the 125I seed. MC study of microDiamond detector design features provided a possible explanation for inter‐detector response variation at low‐energy photon beams by differences in the effective thickness of the active volume. Conclusions MicroDiamond detectors had a non‐negligible variation in the relative intrinsic energy response (factor of 2) which was comparable to that in the absorbed‐dose energy response relative to water at low‐energy photon beams. Silicon diodes, in contrast, had an absorbed‐dose energy dependence on photon energy that varied by a factor of 6, whe...

show abstract

Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of theAAPMTask Group No. 43 Report: Joint recommendations by theAAPMandGEC‐ESTRO

Cited by 59 publications

References 94 publications

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

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

Patient's specific integration of OAR doses (D2 cc) from EBRT and 3D image‐guided brachytherapy for cervical cancer

Investigation of a synthetic diamond detector response in kilovoltage photon beams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About