Affiliation:
1. Centre for Medical and Radiation Physics University of Wollongong Wollongong New South Wales Australia
2. College of Science and Engineering James Cook University Townsville Queensland Australia
3. Townsville Cancer Centre Townsville Hospital and Health Service Townsville Queensland Australia
4. Illawarra Health Medical Research Institute University of Wollongong Wollongong New South Wales Australia
5. Department of Radiation Oncology St George Cancer Care Centre Wollongong New South Wales Australia
6. Institute of Radiooncology‐ OncoRay Helmholtz‐Zentrum Dresden‐Rossendorf, Radiooncology Dresden Germany
7. Illawarra Cancer Care Centre Wollongong Hospital Wollongong New South Wales Australia
Abstract
AbstractPurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of different dosimeters and the treatment planning system (TPS) for assessing the skin dose due to the electron streaming effect (ESE) on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance (MR)‐linac.MethodSkin dose due to the ESE on an MR‐linac (Unity, Elekta) was investigated using a solid water phantom rotated 45° in the x‐y plane (IEC61217) and centered at the isocenter. The phantom was irradiated with 1 × 1, 3 × 3, 5 × 5, 10 × 10, and 22 × 22 cm2 fields, gantry at 90°. Out‐of‐field doses (OFDs) deposited by electron streams generated at the entry and exit surface of the angled phantom were measured on the surface of solid water slabs placed ±20.0 cm from the isocenter along the x‐direction. A high‐resolution MOSkin™ detector served as a benchmark due to its shallower depth of measurement that matches the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended depth for skin dose assessment (0.07 mm). MOSkin™ doses were compared to EBT3 film, OSLDs, a diamond detector, and the TPS where the experimental setup was modeled using two separate calculation parameters settings: a 0.1 cm dose grid with 0.2% statistical uncertainty (0.1 cm, 0.2%) and a 0.2 cm dose grid with 3.0% statistical uncertainty (0.2 cm, 3.0%).ResultsOSLD, film, the 0.1 cm, 0.2%, and 0.2 cm, 3.0% TPS ESE doses, underestimated skin doses measured by the MOSkin™ by as much as –75.3%, –7.0%, –24.7%, and –41.9%, respectively. Film results were most similar to MOSkin™ skin dose measurements.ConclusionsThese results show that electron streams can deposit significant doses outside the primary field and that dosimeter choice and TPS calculation settings greatly influence the reported readings. Due to the steep dose gradient of the ESE, EBT3 film remains the choice for accurate skin dose assessment in this challenging environment.