[en] Purpose: To protect the lens and cornea of the eye when treating the eyelid with electrons, we designed a tungsten and aluminum eye shield that protected both the lens and cornea, and also limited the amount of backscatter to the overlying eyelid when using electron beam therapy. Methods and Materials: Custom curved tungsten eye shields, 2 mm and 3 mm thick, were placed on Kodak XV film on 8 cm polystyrene and irradiated to evaluate the transmission through the shields. To simulate the thickness of the eyelid and to hold the micro-TLDs, an aquaplast mold was made to match the curvature of the eye shields. Backscatter was measured by placing the micro-TLDs on the beam entrance side to check the dose to the underside of the eyelid. Measurements were done with no aluminum, 0.5, and 1.0 mm of aluminum on top of the tungsten eye shields. The measurements were repeated with 2- and 3-mm flat pieces of lead to determine both the transmission and the backscatter dose for this material. Results: Tungsten proved to be superior to lead for shielding the underlying structures and for reducing backscatter. At 6 MeV, a 3-mm flat slab of tungsten plus 0.5 mm of aluminum, resulted in .042 Gy under the shield when 1.00 Gy is delivered to d_max. At 6 MeV for a 3-mm lead plus 0.5-mm aluminum, .046 Gy was measured beneath the shield, a 9.5% decrease with the tungsten. Backscatter was also decreased from 1.17 to 1.13 Gy, a 4% decrease, when using tungsten plus 0.5 mm of aluminum vs. the same thickness of lead. Measurements using 9 MeV were performed in the same manner. With 3 mm tungsten and 0.5 mm of aluminum, at 3 mm depth the dose was .048 Gy compared to .079 Gy with lead and aluminum (39% decrease). Additionally, the backscatter dose was 3% less using tungsten. Simulating the lens dose 3 mm beyond the shield for the 2-mm and 3-mm custom curved tungsten eye shields plus 0.5 mm of aluminum was .030 and .024 Gy, respectively, using 6 MeV (20% decrease). Using 9-MeV electrons, the dose 3 mm beyond the shield was .048 Gy for the 2-mm shield and .029 Gy for the 3-mm shield (40% decrease). Backscatter was not further decreased using thicker tungsten. With a 6-MeV beam, using the 2-mm or 3-mm custom tungsten eye shields plus 0.5 mm of aluminum, the backscattered doses were 1.03 and 1.02 Gy, respectively. The backscatter dose with 9 MeV was 1.06 Gy using the 2-mm custom shield plus 0.5 mm aluminum and 1.05 Gy with a 3-mm custom shield plus 0.5 mm aluminum. There was very little difference in backscatter dosage under the eyelid using 0.5 vs. 1.0 mm of aluminum. Therefore, for patient comfort, we recommend using 0.5 mm of aluminum. Conclusions: Tungsten is superior to lead as a material for eye shields due to its higher density and lower atomic number (Z). Using 6- and 9-MeV electrons, tungsten provides the necessary protection for the lens and cornea of the eye and decreases the amount of backscatter to the eyelid above the shield

[en] Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is commonly delivered using the dynamic or segmental mode of multileaf collimators (DMLC or SMLC). Both methods are designed to deliver intensity-modulated beams as determined by inverse planning software. In this study, we have used the Helios IMRT planning system to generate ideal treatment plans for 10 cases of 2 common treatment sites (prostate and head and neck) and have investigated the actual treatment fluence distributions generated for each of the MLC leaf motion choices. The 2 dose delivery techniques were dosimetrically compared to each other and to the treatment plans. For each technique, point doses were measured in a water phantom using ionization chambers. Also for each technique, 2-dimensional dose distributions at a selected depth in a plastic phantom were obtained, using extended range film. The total delivery time and the number of monitor units (MU) delivered by each method were also compared. Our results indicate that the 2 delivery methods produce comparable results dosimetrically. For the cases reviewed, the delivery time was an average of 15% longer for SMLC deliveries, while the number of MUs (beam-on time) required by SMLC was an average of 15% fewer, than that for the DMLC. In the interest of simplicity, lower beam-on time, and potentially fewer mechanically-related problems, we think that the SMLC delivery technique may be the better choice when Helios is used for planning and Varian linear accelerators are used for delivery

[en] Purpose: To determine acceptable dose variation using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) in the treatment of Mycosis Fungoides with total skin electron beam (TSEB) irradiation. Methods and Materials: From 1983 to 1993, 22 patients were treated with total skin electron beam therapy in the standing position. A six-field technique was used to deliver 2 Gy in two days, treating 4 days per week, to a total dose of 35 to 40 Gy using a degraded 9 MeV electron beam. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed on several locations of the body and the results recorded. The variations in these readings were analyzed to determine normal dose variation for various body locations during TSEB. Results: The dose to flat surfaces of the body was essentially the same as the dose to the prescription point. The dose to tangential surfaces was within ± 10% of the prescription dose, but the readings showed much more variation (up to 24%). Thin areas of the body showed large deviations from the prescription dose along with a large amount of variation in the readings (up to 22%). Special areas of the body, such as the perineum and eyelid, showed large deviations from the prescription dose with very large (up to 40%) variations in the readings. Discussion: The TLD results of this study will be used as a quality assurance check for all new patients treated with TSEB. The results of the TLDs will be compared with this baseline study to determine if the delivered dose is within acceptable ranges. If the TLD results fall outside the acceptable limits established above, then the patient position can be modified or the technique itself evaluated