SU‐E‐T‐481: In Vivo and Post Mortem Animal Irradiation: Measured Vs. Calculated Doses

• Published in: Medical physics (Lancaster) 2015-06, Vol.42 (6Part19), p.3445-3445
• Main Authors: Heintz, P, Heintz, B, Sandoval, D, Weber, W, Melo, D, Guilmette, R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ABSORBED RADIATION DOSES; Audiometry; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DISTANCE; DOSEMETERS; Dosimetry; HEART; IN VIVO; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; LIVER; LUNGS; Medical treatment planning; MOSFET; MOSFETs; PATIENTS; PLANNING; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; Radiation treatment; RADIOTHERAPY; RECTUM; Semiconductor device fabrication; SIMULATION; THICKNESS; WHOLE-BODY IRRADIATION
• ISSN: 0094-2405; 2473-4209
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4924843

Purpose: Computerized radiation therapy treatment planning is performed on almost all patients today. However it is seldom used for laboratory irradiations. The first objective is to assess whether modern radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) systems accurately predict the subject dose by comparing in vivo and decedent dose measurements to calculated doses. The other objective is determine the importance of using a RTP system for laboratory irradiations. Methods: 5 MOSFET radiation dosimeters were placed enterically in each subject (2 sedated Rhesus Macaques) to measure the absorbed dose at 5 levels (carina, lung, heart, liver and rectum) during whole body irradiation. The subjects were treated with large opposed lateral fields and extended distances to cover the entire subject using a Varian 600C linac. CT simulation was performed ante‐mortem (AM) and post‐mortem (PM). To compare AM and PM doses, calculation points were placed at the location of each dosimeter in the treatment plan. The measured results were compared to the results using Varian Eclipse and Prowess Panther RTP systems. Results: The Varian and Prowess treatment planning system agreed to within in +1.5% for both subjects. However there were significant differences between the measured and calculated doses. For both animals the calculated central axis dose was higher than prescribed by 3–5%. This was caused in part by inaccurate measurement of animal thickness at the time of irradiation. For one subject the doses ranged from 4% to 7% high and the other subject the doses ranged 7% to 14% high when compared to the RTP doses. Conclusions: Our results suggest that using proper CT RTP system can more accurately deliver the prescribed dose to laboratory subjects. It also shows that there is significant dose variation in such subjects when inhomogeneities are not considered in the planning process.