Whole-body dose and energy measurements in radiotherapy by a combination of LiF:Mg,Cu,P and LiF:Mg,Ti.

PURPOSE: Long-term survivors of cancer who were treated with radiotherapy are at risk of a radiation-induced tumor. Hence, it is important to model the out-of-field dose resulting from a cancer treatment. These models have to be verified with measurements, due to the small size, the high sensitivity to ionizing radiation and the tissue-equivalent composition, LiF thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD) are well-suited for out-of-field dose measurements. However, the photon energy variation of the stray dose leads to systematic dose errors caused by the variation in response with radiation energy of the TLDs. We present a dosimeter which automatically corrects for the energy variation of the measured photons by combining LiF:Mg,Ti (TLD100) and LiF:Mg,Cu,P (TLD100H) chips.

METHODS: The response with radiation energy of TLD100 and TLD100H compared to 60 Co was taken from the literature. For the measurement, a TLD100H was placed on top of a TLD100 chip. The dose ratio between the TLD100 and TLD100H, combined with the ratio of the response curves was used to determine the mean energy. With the energy, the individual correction factors for TLD100 and TLD100H could be found. The accuracy in determining the in- and out-of-field dose for a nominal beam energy of 6MV using the double-TLD unit was evaluated by an end-to-end measurement. Furthermore, published Monte Carlo (M.C.) simulations of the mean photon energy for brachytherapy sources, stray radiation of a treatment machine and cone beam CT (CBCT) were compared to the measured mean energies. Finally, the photon energy distribution in an Alderson phantom was measured for different treatment techniques applied with a linear accelerator. Additionally, a treatment plan was measured with a cobalt machine combined with an MRI.

RESULTS: For external radiotherapy, the presented double-TLD unit showed a relative type A uncertainty in doses of -1%±2% at the two standard deviation level compared to an ionization chamber. The type A uncertainty in dose was in agreement with the theoretically calculated type B uncertainty. The measured energies for brachytherapy sources, stray radiation of a treatment machine and CBCT imaging were in agreement with M.C. simulations. A shift in energy with increasing distance to the isocenter was noticed for the various treatment plans measured with the Alderson phantom. The calculated type B uncertainties in energy were in line with the experimentally evaluated type A uncertainties.

CONCLUSION: The double-TLD unit is able to predict the photon energy of scatter radiation in external radiotherapy, X-ray imagine and brachytherapy sources. For external radiotherapy, the individual energy correction factors enabled a more accurate dose determination compared to conventional TLD measurements.