Thermoluminescent dosimetry in clinical kilovoltage beams
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2010-08-02T05:58:42Z
Authors
Akpochafor, Michael Onoriode
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed at calibrating a new set of GR-200A thermoluminescent
dosimeters (TLDs) in low and medium kilovoltage energy photon therapy beams and in a
diagnostic beam of known beam quality, in order to determine their response and to
establish if the same set of TLDs could be used across both environments for in-vivo
dosimetry purposes.
Methods and Materials: A set of 20 TLDs was used for this study. An Oven type PCL3
was used to anneal the TLDs. The response of the TLDs was read using the Reader type
LTM manufactured by Harshaw Bicron, United State of America. Vacuum tweezers
were used to transfer the TLDs at the time of measurements and calibration. TLDs were
kept in a subdued ultra-violet environment between the annealing and irradiation process.
TLDs were placed on a 30 x 30 x 17.6 cm³ Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom
during irradiation. A calibrated Orthovoltage machine was used to deliver a known
absorbed dose to the TLDs. A cylindrical ionization chamber (PTW 30001) and an
electrometer (PTW 10008) were used to confirm the absorbed dose delivery of the
orthovoltage machine at the time of measurement. Likewise, a calibrated LX40
radiotherapy Simulator was used to deliver a known diagnostic absorbed dose to the
TLDs. A TM77334 ionization chamber was used similarly to confirm the absorbed dose.
The TLDs were also irradiated on the PMMA phantom. The accepted variation in raw
response of the individual TLDs from the average of the batch was compared and a
deviation of less than ± 20 % was considered within tolerance. A 10 % tolerance was
subsequently considered suitable for the measurement of absorbed dose.
Results: Of the 20 TLDs calibrated in the 95 kVp therapy beam (3 mm Al half-value
layer), 17 were within the accepted response level (i.e. ± 20 % deviation), 17 in the 180
kVp therapy beam (1 mm Cu half-value layer), 16 in the 300 kVp therapy beam (3 mm Cu
half-value layer) and 15 in the diagnostic beam of 80 kVp (2.97 mm Al half-value layer).
16 of the 17 TLDs were within ± 10 % dose tolerance at 95 kVp whereas all the TLDs
that were within the accepted response level at the 180 kVp and 300 kVp, were within the ± 10 % dose tolerance. 12 of the 15 TLDs at the diagnostic beam energy were within the
± 10 % dose tolerance. Three of the TLDs were therefore rejected at all energies.
Conclusion: The study concludes that the same set of GR-200A TLDs could be used
across both kilovoltage therapy and diagnostic fluoroscopy environments for in-vivo
dosimetry purposes if an accuracy of ± 10 % is considered acceptable, however a
separate calibration needs to done at each beam quality. Individual dosimeters from a
batch should be carefully identified and sorted during the calibration process prior to
clinical use.