2013
DOI: 10.5505/tjoncol.2013.985
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of thermoplastic masks used for immobilization of patients on surface and build-up for megavoltage radiation

Abstract: OBJECTIVESTo examine the effect of thermoplastic masks used for immobilization on surface dose at Co-60 and 6MV photon energies. METHODSThree pieces of Aquaplast masks were used. One of these masks was used intact as a standard. The hole diameters of the other masks were stretched 1.25 and 2-fold. The masks were numbered as 1, 2, 3. Doses were measured with Markus parallel-plate (pp) ionization chamber, EBT2 film and MOS-FET dosimetry. RESULTSThe 1, 2 and 3 numbered masks were increased the surface dose from 2… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 11 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results are in good agreement with the results of MOSkin when the WET values Advances in High Energy Physics are considered. Elvan Erkan and Kemikler [23] examined the effect of thermoplastic masks used for immobilization on surface dose at Co-60 and 6 MV (Siemens Oncor Impression Plus linear accelerator) photon energies. They used MOSFET detectors which have a WET of 0.8 mm and their surface dose measurements were 32.2 ± 2.3%, 37.4 ± 2.3%, and 43.2 ± 2.4% for the same field sizes that we used, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our results are in good agreement with the results of MOSkin when the WET values Advances in High Energy Physics are considered. Elvan Erkan and Kemikler [23] examined the effect of thermoplastic masks used for immobilization on surface dose at Co-60 and 6 MV (Siemens Oncor Impression Plus linear accelerator) photon energies. They used MOSFET detectors which have a WET of 0.8 mm and their surface dose measurements were 32.2 ± 2.3%, 37.4 ± 2.3%, and 43.2 ± 2.4% for the same field sizes that we used, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%