Submitted:
04 July 2023
Posted:
05 July 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Phantom Design
| Pe = HU/1000+1 HU< 100 | (1) |
| Pe = HU/1950+1 HU≥ 100 | (2) |
2.2. Phantom Validation
Patient-specific absolute dosimetry
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Funding
Conflict of Interest
References
- FM Khan, The Physics of Radiation Therapy, fourth ed., Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer, 2012.
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53, Quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning, Med. Phys. 25, (1998) 1773–1829.
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40, Comprehensive QA for Radiation Oncology, Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40, Med.Phys.21, (1994) 581–618.
- Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on absorbed dose to water. IAEA¸ Vienna¸ 2000.
- The ICRU Report 83, prescribing, recording, and reporting photon beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), Cancer/Radiotherapy, (2011)15(6-7), 555–559.
- International Commission on Radiation Units and measurements ICRU), Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. Report No. 44. Bethesda, MD, USA, (1998).
- Bagdare P, Dubey S, Ghosh SK, et al. Analysis of gamma index using in-house developed heterogeneous thorax phantom. Int J Radiol RadiatTher. 2021; 8(1):9-11.
- Svenesson, GK. Quality assurance in radiation therapy: physical effort. IntJRadiatOncolBiolPhys.1984; 0(1):23-29.
- Brahme A, Chavaudra J, Landberg T, et al. Accuracy requirements and quality assurance of external beam therapy with photons and electrons.ActaOncol.1988;1(1):1-76.
- Manikandan A, Sekaran SC, Sarkar B, et al. A homogeneous water-equivalent anthropomorphic phantom for dosimetric verification of radiotherapy plans.JMedPhys.2018; 43(2):100–105.
- Letourneau D, Publicover J, Kozelka J, et al. Novel dosimetric phantom for quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy Med Phys.2009;36(5):1813–1821.
- Gurjar OP, Mishra SP. A comparative study on patient–specific absolute dosimetry using slab phantom, acrylic body phantom, and goat headphantom.IntJCancerTherOncol.2015; 3(2):1–5.
- Yasui K, Toshito T, Omachi C, et al. Dosimetric verificationof IMPTusing a commercial heterogeneous phantom. J ApplClin Med Phys.2019; 20(2):114–120.
- Chen MW, Deng XW, Huang SM, et al. Application ofamorphoussilicon electronic portal imaging device (a–SiEPID) to dosimetry qualityassuranceofradiationtherapy.AiZheng.2007;26(11):1272–1275.
- Thomas, S. J. (2014). Relative electron density calibration of CT scanners for radiotherapy treatment planning. 72(AUG.), 781–786.
- Litzenberg, D. W. , Amro, H., Prisciandaro, J. I., Acosta, E., Gallagher, I., & Roberts, D. A. (2011). Dosimetric impact of density variations in Solid Water 457 water-equivalent slabs. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 12(3), 231–247.
- Nakao, M. , Ozawa, S., Miura, H., Yamada, K., Habara, K., Hayata, M., Kusaba, H., Kawahara, D., Miki, K., Nakashima, T., Ochi, Y., Tsuda, S., Seido, M., Morimoto, Y., Kawakubo, A., Nozaki, H., & Nagata, Y. (2020). Development of a CT number calibration audit phantom in photon radiation therapy: A pilot study. Medical Physics, 47(4), 1509–1522.
- Schaly, B. , Varchena, V., Au, P., & Pang, G. (2009). Evaluation of an anthropomorphic male pelvic phantom for image-guided radiotherapy. Reports in Medical Imaging, 2, 69–78.
- Shrotriya, D. , Yadav, R. S., Srivastava, R. N. L., & Verma, T. R. (2018). Design and development of an indigenous in-house tissue-equivalent female pelvic phantom for radiological dosimetric applications. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics, 15(3), 200–205.
- Singh, S., Raina, P., & Gurjar, O. P. (2020). Dosimetric Study of an Indigenous and Heterogeneous Pelvic Phantom for Radiotherapy Quality Assurance. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics, 17(2), 120–125. 2.
- Singh, V. P. , & Badiger, N. (2014). Effective atomic numbers of some tissue substitutes by different methods: A comparative study. Journal of Medical Physics, 39(1), 24.
- Srivastava, R. P. , & De Wagter, C. (2019). Clinical experience using Delta 4 phantom for pretreatment patient-specific quality assurance in modern radiotherapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, 18(2), 210–214.
- Gurjar, O., Mishra, S., Bhandari, V., Pathak, P., Patel, P., & Shrivastav, G. (2014). Radiation dose verification using real tissue phantom in modern radiotherapy techniques. Journal of Medical Physics, 39(1), 44.
- Yasui, K., Toshito, T., Omachi, C., Hayashi, K., Kinou, H., Katsurada, M., Hayashi, N., & Ogino, H. (2019). Dosimetric verification of IMPT using a commercial heterogeneous phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 20(2), 114–120.
- Zain, N. E. M., Jais, U., Abdullah, R., Abdullah, R., & Rahman, W. N. W. A. (2019). Dosimetric Characterization of Customized PLA Phantom for Radiotherapy. Jurnal Sains Nuklear Malaysia, 31(2), 1–6.
- Zhang, F., Zhang, H., Zhao, H., He, Z., Shi, L., He, Y., Ju, N., Rong, Y., &Qiu, J. (2019). Design and fabrication of a personalized anthropomorphic phantom using 3D printing and tissue equivalent materials. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery, 9(1), 9400–9100.
- HillR, Kuncic Z, Baldock C. The water equivalence of solid phantoms for low energy photon beams. MedPhys. 2010; 37(8):4355–4363.



| S.N. | Pelvic Organs | Actual Female Patient | AHFP Phantom | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HU±SD | RED | HU±SD | RED | ||||
| 1 | Uterus | 45±20 | 1.031 | 50±21 | 1.07 | ||
| 2 | Bladder | 12±6 | 1.02 | -4.0±17 | 1.015 | ||
| 3 | Rectum | 42±17 | 1.040 | 43±26 | 1.069 | ||
| 4 | Muscles | 70±12 | 1.08 | 72±33 | 1.105 | ||
| 5 | Fats | -120±8 | 0.955 | -170±79 | 0.909 | ||
| 6 | Bone | 965±110 | 1.489 | 947±277 | 1.628 | ||
| Homogeneous Phantom (Slabs Phantom) | Heterogeneous Phantom (AHFP) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sr.No | Planned Dose on TPS (cGy) | Measured Dose on LA (cGy) | % of variation | Planned Dose on TPS (cGy) | Measured Dose on LA (cGy) | % of Variation |
| 1 | 199.01 | 196.32 | -1.35169087 | 204 | 184 | -9.803921569 |
| 2 | 200.4 | 194.89 | -2.749500998 | 210.6 | 188.13 | -10.66951567 |
| 3 | 192 | 189.92 | -1.083333333 | 214 | 191.36 | -10.57943925 |
| 4 | 230.16 | 233.9 | 1.624956552 | 203.27 | 193.78 | -4.66866729 |
| 5 | 200.38 | 205.48 | 2.545164188 | 194.1 | 188.05 | -3.116950026 |
| 6 | 216.25 | 210 | -2.89017341 | 212.5 | 195.43 | -8.032941176 |
| 7 | 185 | 181.63 | -1.821621622 | 205.9 | 194.84 | -5.371539582 |
| 8 | 220.13 | 225 | 2.212329078 | 192.6 | 172.25 | -10.56593977 |
| 9 | 205.09 | 199.62 | -2.667121751 | 226.5 | 208 | -8.167770419 |
| 10 | 205.09 | 210 | 2.394070896 | 210.9 | 192.85 | -8.558558559 |
| 11 | 172.8 | 171.13 | -0.966435185 | 200 | 184.03 | -7.985 |
| 12 | 196.3 | 197.5 | 0.611309221 | 210 | 189.92 | -9.561904762 |
| 13 | 192.8 | 193.7 | 0.466804979 | 230 | 217.77 | -5.317391304 |
| 14 | 196.7 | 195.43 | -0.645653279 | 216 | 195.38 | -9.546296296 |
| 15 | 200.5 | 199.94 | -0.279301746 | 218 | 199.62 | -8.431192661 |
| 16 | 187.4 | 183.92 | -1.856990395 | 199 | 186.23 | -6.417085427 |
| 17 | 202.7 | 200.5 | -1.085347805 | 220.7 | 225.3 | 2.0842773 |
| 18 | 205.9 | 204.5 | -0.679941719 | 210.5 | 218 | 3.562945368 |
| 19 | 225.7 | 228.4 | 1.196278245 | 218 | 199.62 | -8.431192661 |
| 20 | 197 | 195.43 | -0.796954315 | 200 | 195.38 | -2.31 |
| 21 | 219 | 221 | 0.913242009 | 172.8 | 158.98 | -7.997685185 |
| 22 | 194 | 192 | -1.030927835 | 191.3 | 198.44 | 3.732357554 |
| 23 | 230 | 228 | -0.869565217 | 197.8 | 187.44 | -5.237613751 |
| 24 | 185 | 187.5 | 1.351351351 | 189.48 | 199.5 | 5.288157061 |
| 25 | 196 | 199 | 1.530612245 | 223 | 213.5 | -4.260089686 |
| 26 | 216 | 218 | 0.925925926 | 198 | 182 | -8.080808081 |
| 27 | 212 | 215 | 1.41509434 | 194 | 176 | -9.278350515 |
| 28 | 172 | 177 | 2.906976744 | 181 | 192 | 6.077348066 |
| 29 | 204 | 206 | 0.980392157 | 208 | 197 | -5.288461538 |
| 30 | 190 | 188 | -1.052631579 | 229 | 210 | -8.296943231 |
| Sr.No. | Statistical Parameters | Slab Phantom | AHFP Phantom |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | N | 30 | 30 |
| 2 | ∑X | 42.8982 | 206.715 |
| 3 | Mean | 1.4299 | 6.8905 |
| 4 | ∑X2 | 78.4543 | 1615.1667 |
| 5 | Std. Dev. | 0.7682 | 2.565 |
| 6 | t-value | 0.00508 | 3.21604 |
| 7 | ρ | 0.497982 | 0.001063 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).