Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:44:25.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of thermoplastic Klarity mask use during intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck carcinoma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2018

Khaldoon Radaideh
Khaldoon Radaideh*
Affiliation:
Radiologic Technology Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Al-Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia
*
†Correspondence to: Dr Khaldoon Radaideh, Radiologic Technology Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Al-Qassim University, P.O. Box 6699, Buraydah 51452, Saudi Arabia. Tel: 00966 54 733 2755. E-mail: khaldoonmah1@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the Klarity® Mask with respect to skin doses and toxicity secondary to head and neck cancer radiation treatment.

Materials and methods

This prospective study included five nasopharyngeal cancer patients who underwent intensity-modulated radiation therapy and monitored for skin toxicity. An anatomical Perspex head and neck phantom was designed and used. All patients’ treatment plans were separately transferred to the phantom. Dosimetric measurements were performed using chip-shaped thermoluminescent dosimeters (LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs) which were distributed at certain target points on the phantom. Phantom was irradiated twicely with and without a Klarity® Mask. Three fractions for each patient plan were obtained and compared with treatment planning system (TPS) doses as guided by computed tomography.

Results

The Klarity mask used for patient immobilisation increased the surface dose by 10·83% more than that without the mask. The average variations between skin dose measurements with and without the Klarity mask for all patients’ plans ranged from 10·26 to 11·83%. TPS overestimated the surface dose by 19·13% when compared with thermoluminescent dosimeters that measured the direct skin dose.

Conclusions

Klarity immobilisation mask increases skin doses, as a consequence, surface dose measurements should be monitored and must be taken into account.

Keywords

anthropomorphic phantomdosimetryIMRTskin toxicityThermoplastic Klarity mask

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 171 - 178
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Introduction

Treatment of head and neck tumours using radiotherapy requires highly accurate procedures,Reference Weltens, Kesteloot, Vandevelde and Van den Bogaert 1 as missing the treatment targets due to patient movements or lack of accuracy in positioning may lead to increased doses to some organs at risks (OAR) such as skin, spinal cord and the eyes.Reference Weltens, Kesteloot, Vandevelde and Van den Bogaert 1 , Reference Hess, Kortmann, Jany, Hamberger and Bamberg 2 Consequently, special thermoplastic head and neck immobilisation devices are used to reproducibly position the patient on the table for safe delivery of radiation.Reference Bahl, Ghosal, Kapoor, Bhattacharya and Sharma 3 Typically masks made of polyvinyl chloride (plastic) (PVC) or thermoplastic material such as Orfit masks (Orfit Industries America, Wijnegem, Belgium) are used as immobilisation systems for head fixation.

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has proved to be effective for the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancers (NPC), with superior tumour coverage in comparison with all conventional techniques.Reference Radaideh and Matalqah 4 However, skin toxicity following IMRT treatment remains substantial due to the use of multiple tangential beams, consequently, skin dose measurements and skin-sparing techniques are highly recommended for head and neck treatments using IMRT.Reference Radaideh and Matalqah 4 It was found that IMRT increases skin doses by 19 and 27% with and without an immobilisation Klarity mask, respectively, when compared with conventional therapy.Reference Lee, Chuang and Quivey 5 previous studies found that the surface dose increased by thermoplastic immobilisation masks during IMRT.Reference Hadley 6 – Reference Póltorak, Fujak and Kukolowicz 9 Moreover, using some immobilisation devices may lead to increase skin surface dose between 16 and 27%.Reference Hadley 6 Other researchers found that using thermoplastic masks material (Klarity Medical & Equipment Co., Guangzhou, China) increased the surface dose from 10 to 42% for 6 MV and from 5 to 28% for 15 MV X-ray,Reference Póltorak, Fujak and Kukolowicz 9 while it increased the surface dose at anterior upper and lower neck for head and neck patient by 30% measured by film on anthropomorphic rando phantom.Reference Zhen, Nedzi, Chen, Jiang and Zhao 7 Another study concluded that head and neck mask increased surface dose by a factor of 3 using 18 MV and by a factor of 4 using 6 MV, and increasing in surface dose depends on the type of the mask, the size of the opening and the amount of stretching performed during the mask preparation.Reference Ali, Matthiesen and Algan 10 Therefore, increased skin doses using thermobilisation devices should be concern, as a bolus effect and contributing to skin toxicity.Reference Hess, Kortmann, Jany, Hamberger and Bamberg 2 , Reference Fiorino, Cattaneo and del Vecchio 11

Treatment planning system (TPS) may not give accurate doses for skin mainly due to excluding skin when considering OARs, during treatment planning.Reference Radaideh and Matalqah 4 , Reference Dogan and Glasgow 12 – Reference Chung, Jin and Dempsey 16 Inconsistencies between the calculated and measured doses, using IMRT, are the main motivation for the researchers to use skin dose measurements using dosimeters.Reference Chung, Jin and Dempsey 16 Therefore, it is necessary to measure the skin doses using dosimeter detectors such the metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor or thermoluminescence. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are widely used for in vivo dosimetry.Reference Lanson, Essers, Meijer, Minken, Uiterwaal and Mijnheer 17 – Reference Radaideh, Matalqah, Tajuddin, Lee, Bauk and Munem 22 The purpose of this work is to quantitatively evaluate the effect of thermoplastic Klarity Mask (Orfit Industries America, Wijnegem, Belgium) on patient skin dose during IMRT treatment.

Materials and Methods

In total, 99 chip-shaped LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs (Bicron NE, Waltham, MA, USA) were used after annealing and calibration cycles on the surface of a solid-water phantom and against a cylindrical ion chamber. Doses ranging from 0·05 to 1 Gy were delivered. The sensitivity and reproducibility of TLDs were selected within ±5% for calibration and measurement on the surface.Reference Radaideh and Matalqah 4 , Reference Radaideh, Matalqah, Tajuddin, Sabar and Abdel Munem 20 – Reference Radaideh, Matalqah, Tajuddin, Lee, Bauk and Munem 22 An anthropomorphic head and neck phantom was designed from 39 movable slices on which clinical organs were delineated (Figure 1).Reference Radaideh, Matalqah, Tajuddin, Fabian and Bauk 21 , Reference Radaideh, Matalqah, Tajuddin, Lee, Bauk and Munem 22 In addition, a cubic Perspex and a standard phantoms (Scanditronix Wellhőver) were used in this study (Figure 2). Phantoms were imaged by SIEMENS CT Scanner (SOMATOM Sensation Open, Medser-Heusenstamm, Germany), planned and irradiated using IMRT technique for 33 fractions, with 2·12 Gy per fraction. TLDs were readout and compared with the calculated doses obtained from TPS (Oncentra Maher plan V3.3). The correction factor was calculated for the anatomical Perspex phantom.Reference Radaideh, Matalqah, Tajuddin, Sabar and Abdel Munem 20

Figure 1

Fabricated anthropomorphic Perspex head and neck phantom for dosimetric verification of treatment delivery.

Figure 2

Head cube phantom (Scanditronix Wellhőver) and Perspex cube phantom.

Five NPC patients’ IMRT treatment plans were transferred consecutively with centre-points adjustment using computed tomography (CT) phantom images in a way that the OAR and planning target volume (PTV) for all plans were correctly matched (Figure 3). The anthropomorphic Perspex head and neck phantom was irradiated using the previous five plans with and without an immobilisation Klarity mask covering the head, neck and shoulder (Figure 4).

Figure 3

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for Perspex phantom delivered nine beams with 2.12 Gy per fraction.

Figure 4

Immobilisation Klarity mask cover the phantom for head, neck and shoulder.

IMRT technique of 6 MV was used with a gross tumour volume receiving 70 Gy and clinical target volume receiving 60 Gy (the prescription goal was 95% of the PTV receives at least 70 Gy).Reference Henson, Eisbruch, D’Hondt and Ship 23 – Reference Li, Taylor, Ten Haken and Eisbruch 25 In total, eight TLDs were fixed on each target: right and left eyes, right and left buccal cavity, and right and left neck. An extreme caution was taken to maintain the detectors at the same locations for each patient plan. For each patient’s plan, three consecutive fractions were delivered with and without immobilisation Klarity mask and the average doses were considered.

Results

The reproducibility of the TLDs was checked and excellent consistency was obtained for repetitive measurements for each inter-fraction. The TLDs measurements displayed a linear dose response at the surface from 25 to 400 cGy. However, some measurements were performed outside the main field where the scattered photons had lower energy than the main beam energy.

Although designing the head and neck Perspex phantom, attention was given to the effect of phantom material (Perspex) on TLD readings. Three CT reference points and iso-centre were determined to match the points of standard and Perspex cubic phantoms. The measured doses of three IMRT fractions at different surface points of cubic and Perspex phantom are illustrated in Table 1. It was observed that the TPS overestimates the skin dose by 20·6% when compared with standard phantom and 22·1% as compared with Perspex phantom (Table 1). The deviation of inter-fraction of TLDs measurements was within the expected range of 18·36–19·67%. The variation between IMRT measured doses using standard phantom and Perspex phantom was within 4%.

Table 1

Comparison point doses between the average (AV.) of three intensity-modulated radiation therapy inter-fractions measured doses using standard and Perspex cube phantoms on the surfaces

Abbreviation: TPS, treatment planning system.

In total, 300 TLD measurements were used to estimate the skin doses at the six different reference points of head and neck patients with and without Klarity mask. The average variations between skin dose measurement without and with Klarity mask were 11·83, 11·23% at the left and right eyes, 10·26, 10·71% at the left and right buccal, and 9·36, 11·59% at the left and right neck, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2

Comparison point between average variation of measured skin dose for five patients plan at six regions between using a mask and without a mask

When TLDs doses at the phantom’s surface were compared with calculated dose, the TPS overestimates the skin doses with an average of 19·13% (Table 3). At eye regions, Klarity mask increased the doses by 10·1–12·9% at right eyes and 8·7–15·9% on the left eyes (Figures 5 and 6). In contrast, the calculated doses by TPS were higher than those measured by TLDs with Klarity mask by 17·7–20·25%. This study also showed that Klarity mask increased the dose at buccal region by 8·5–11·4% (Figures 7 and 8). These results are consistent with the results at the neck with 10·3–13·0% increase at right area and 7·5–11·9% at left area (Figures 9 and 10). TPS also overestimate the dose at neck regions by 17·7–22·1%.

Figure 5

In vivo dose measurements at left eye regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 6

In vivo dose measurements at right eye regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 7

In vivo dose measurements at right buccal regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 8

In vivo dose measurements at left buccal regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 9

In vivo dose measurements at right neck regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 10

In vivo dose measurements at left neck regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Table 3

In vivo average (av.) of three fractions skin dose measurements and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients transfer plans on the phantom at different head and neck surface regions

Abbreviations: TLD, thermoluminescent dosimeters; TPS, treatment planning system.

Discussion

The phantom material can be a source of error during dosimetry measurements, therefore, a Correction Factor (K correction) for Perspex material was considered. In previous literature, the correction factor at 6 MV was found to be about 1·068 using TLDs and 1·063 using Monte Carlo simulation,Reference Lee, Yeh, Hsu, Shi, Chen and Wang 26 it was calculated in this study and was 1·0500±0·003. This correction replaces all errors resulting from a variation in sensitivity, phantom material, field size and fading. By multiplying the absorbed dose measured by TLDs in the Perspex phantom with the dose correction factor, the absorbed dose in the water phantom at the calibration depth can be obtained. However, the energy response of TLD-100 to a photon energy higher than 1 MV remained constant with negligible energy dependence.Reference Court, Tishler, Allen, Xiang, Makrigiorgos and Chin 13 , Reference Panettieri, Barsoum, Westermark, Brualla and Lax 15

After TLDs were irradiated for six times, the TLDs reproducibility ranged between 1 and 3·5% and with sensitivity <8% were used in this study. In agreement with another study, the standard deviations of TLD-100 reproducibility response were 3–5% of delivered doses ranging from 1 to 5 Gy.Reference Harris, Elson, Lamba and Foster 27 There is a linear relationship (R 2=0·998) between TLDs doses and measured doses at doses ranging from 0·5 to 4 Gy when measured at the surface. No energy correction factors were used as the reproducibility of TLDs had a SD <3·5%.

TPS overestimates the skin dose by 20·6% when compared with standard phantom and 22·1% as compared with Perspex phantom (Table 1). These results were in agreement with previous literatures where TPS overestimated prescribed doses by 25%.Reference Dogan and Glasgow 12 , Reference Court, Tishler, Allen, Xiang, Makrigiorgos and Chin 13 , Reference Panettieri, Barsoum, Westermark, Brualla and Lax 15 , Reference Chung, Jin and Dempsey 16 , Reference Kinhikar, Murthy, Goel, Tambe, Dhote and Deshpande 28 The main causes of this variation between in vivo measurements and TPS doses may be due to high dose gradients, set up error, the positioning of the patient and region of labelling dosimeters.Reference Chuang, Verhey and Xia 29 To avoid these errors, an extreme caution was taken to keep the same location of the detectors for each patients’ plan before treatment.

The study was planned so that 95% should be delivered at PTV, and other OARs were avoided. Fractionation of the total plan dose for multiple sessions can reduce skin erythema, however, the effect of radiation tends to be accumulative.Reference Koenig, Wolff, Mettler and Wagner 30 The severity of skin erythema is obviously related to the total accumulative dose and it becomes serious after exceeding the threshold dose.Reference Radaideh and Matalqah 4 , Reference Lee, Chuang and Quivey 5 After conducting all fractions of treatments, all patients have skin toxicity especially in the neck area, ranging from minor to major. Skin burn was obvious at the neck region and become severe after accumulative doses of 9% of the total 70 Gy (6·3 Gy) which is consistent with previous literature which found that the erythema occurred at skin dose after a dose of 6–8 Gy.Reference Mettler, Koenig, Wagner and Kelsey 31 A high correlation was found between the accumulative skin dose and skin toxicity.Reference Bahl, Ghosal, Kapoor, Bhattacharya and Sharma 3

Furthermore, such skin dose could be increased up to 57·1–88% in case of using a thermoplastic mask.Reference Amiel Halm, Tamri, Bridier, Wibault and Eschwège 8 The results of this study are consistent with this previous study and showed that skin dose increased when using thermoplastic masks material by 10–42% for 6 MV and by 5–28% for 15 MV photons using an ionisation chamber.Reference Póltorak, Fujak and Kukolowicz 9 The results of this study are consistent with this previous study and showed that head and neck Klarity mask increases skin dose by an average of 10·83% and the percentage depends on materials used (Table 2). In conclusion, Klarity mask is still acceptable immobilisation device when compared with other masks that increase the skin doses by about 14·8% (11·4–58·4%)Reference Zhen, Nedzi, Chen, Jiang and Zhao 7 and 16–27% for other immobilisation devices.Reference Hadley 32

Conclusion

In vivo dosimetry is a useful tool with IMRT techniques for areas where a high skin doses is expected, as the TPS may not give accurate dose values at the surface. Multiple factors may contribute to causing acute skin reaction for head and neck cancer patients, such as immobilisation contouring plane and IMRT technique. Klarity mask, used for patient immobilisation, increase surface dose by 10·83% more than that without the mask. However, the skin reaction and the surface dose measurements should be monitored, and must be taken into account.

Limitations

The researchers tried to keep TLDs at the same positions for all patients, however there may be slight deviation from the correct position.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledge Qassim University, represented by the Deanship of Scientific Research, on the material support for this research under the number 1339-Cams1-12-1-2016-S-1240 during the academic year 1438 AH/2016 AD.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare that there are no conflicts interest.

References

1. Weltens, C, Kesteloot, K, Vandevelde, G, Van den Bogaert, W. Comparison of plastic and Orfit® masks for patient head fixation during radiotherapy: precision and costs. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 33 (2): 499–507.Google Scholar
2. Hess, C F, Kortmann, R, Jany, R, Hamberger, A, Bamberg, M. Accuracy of field alignment in radiotherapy of head and neck cancer utilizing individualized face mask immobilization: a retrospective analysis of clinical practice. Radiother Oncol 1995; 34 (1): 69–72.Google Scholar
3. Bahl, A, Ghosal, S, Kapoor, R, Bhattacharya, T, Sharma, S C. Clinical implications of thermoplastic mask immobilization on acute effects of radiotherapy in head and neck cancers. J Postgrad Med 2012; 46 (4): 187–189.Google Scholar
4. Radaideh, K M, Matalqah, L M. Predictors of radiation-induced skin toxicity in nasopharyngeal cancer patients treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a prospective study. J Radiother Pract 2016; 15 (3): 276–282.Google Scholar
5. Lee, N, Chuang, C, Quivey, J M et al. Skin toxicity due to intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head-and-neck carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53 (3): 630–637.Google Scholar
6. Hadley, S W. Effects of immobilization mask material on surface dose. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2005; 6 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
7. Zhen, H, Nedzi, L, Chen, S, Jiang, S, Zhao, B. SU-E-T-541: bolus effect of thermoplastic masks in IMRT and VMAT head and neck treatments. Med Phys 2014; 41 (6): 352.Google Scholar
8. Amiel Halm, E, Tamri, A, Bridier, A, Wibault, P, Eschwège, F. Influence des masques thermoformés de contention sur la dose à la peau en radiothérapie des tumeurs des voies aérodigestives supérieures. Cancer Radiothérapie 2002; 6 (5): 310–319.Google Scholar
9. Póltorak, M, Fujak, E, Kukolowicz, P. Effect of the thermoplastic masks on dose distribution in the build-up region for photon beams. Pol J Med Phys Eng 2016; 22 (1): 1–4.Google Scholar
10. Ali, I, Matthiesen, C, Algan, O et al. Quantitative evaluation of increase in surface dose by immobilization thermoplastic masks and superficial dosimetry using gafchromic EBT film and Monte Carlo calculations. J Xray Sci Technol 2010; 18 (3): 319–326.Google Scholar
11. Fiorino, C, Cattaneo, G M, del Vecchio, A et al. Skin dose measurements for head and neck radiotherapy. Med Phys 1992; 19 (5): 1263–1266.Google Scholar
12. Dogan, N, Glasgow, G P. Surface and build-up region dosimetry for obliquely incident intensity modulated radiotherapy 6 MV X rays. Med Phys 2003; 30 (12): 3091–3096.Google Scholar
13. Court, L E, Tishler, R B, Allen, A M, Xiang, H, Makrigiorgos, M, Chin, L. Experimental evaluation of the accuracy of skin dose calculation for a commercial treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2008; 9 (1): 29–35.Google Scholar
14. Lamb, A, Blake, S. Investigation and modelling of the surface dose from linear accelerator produced 6 and 10 MV photon beams. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43 (5): 1133–1146.Google Scholar
15. Panettieri, V, Barsoum, P, Westermark, M, Brualla, L, Lax, I. AAA and PBC calculation accuracy in the surface build-up region in tangential beam treatments. Phantom and breast case study with the Monte Carlo code penelope. Radiother Oncol 2009; 93 (1): 94–101.Google Scholar
16. Chung, H, Jin, H, Dempsey, J F et al. Evaluation of surface and build-up region dose for intensity-modulated radiation therapy in head and neck cancer. Med Phys 2005; 32 (8): 2682–2689.Google Scholar
17. Lanson, J H, Essers, M, Meijer, G J, Minken, A W H, Uiterwaal, G J, Mijnheer, B J. In vivo dosimetry during conformal radiotherapy. Requirements for and findings of a routine procedure. Radiother Oncol 1999; 52 (1): 51–59.Google Scholar
18. Kron, T. Applications of thermoluminescence dosimetry in medicine. Radiat Prot Dosimet 1999; 85 (1–4): 333–340.Google Scholar
19. Oliveira, F, Amaral, L, Costa, A, Netto, T. Treatment verification and in vivo dosimetry for total body irradiation using thermoluminescent and semiconductor detectors. Radiat Meas 2014; 71: 374–378.Google Scholar
20. Radaideh, K M, Matalqah, L, Tajuddin, A A, Sabar, B, Abdel Munem, E. A custom made phantom for dosimetric audit and quality assurance of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. J Sains Nuk Malay 2012; 24 (1): 48–58.Google Scholar
21. Radaideh, K M, Matalqah, L, Tajuddin, A A, Fabian, L, Bauk, S. Preliminary dosimetric evaluation of a designed head and neck phantom for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Int J Med Med Sci 2012; 11 (2): 236–244.Google Scholar
22. Radaideh, K M, Matalqah, L M, Tajuddin, A A, Lee, W I F, Bauk, S, Munem, E M E A. Development and evaluation of a perspex anthropomorphic head and neck phantom for three dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). J Radiother Pract 2013; 12 (3): 272–280.Google Scholar
23. Henson, B S, Eisbruch, A, D’Hondt, E, Ship, J A. Two-year longitudinal study of parotid salivary flow rates in head and neck cancer patients receiving unilateral neck parotid-sparing radiotherapy treatment. Oral Oncol 1999; 35 (3): 234–241.Google Scholar
24. Braam, P M, Terhaard, C H J, Roesink, J M, Raaijmakers, C P J. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy significantly reduces xerostomia compared with conventional radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006; 66 (4): 975–980.Google Scholar
25. Li, Y, Taylor, J M G, Ten Haken, R K, Eisbruch, A. The impact of dose on parotid salivary recovery in head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67 (3): 660–669.Google Scholar
26. Lee, J H, Yeh, C Y, Hsu, S M, Shi, M Y, Chen, W L, Wang, C F. Simple dose verification system for radiotherapy radiation. Radiat Meas 2008; 43 (2–6): 954–958.Google Scholar
27. Harris, C K, Elson, H R, Lamba, M A S, Foster, A E. A comparison of the effectiveness of thermoluminescent crystals LiF:Mg,ti, and LiF:Mg,cu,P for clinical dosimetry. Med Phys 1997; 24 (9): 1527–1529.Google Scholar
28. Kinhikar, R A, Murthy, V, Goel, V, Tambe, C M, Dhote, D S, Deshpande, D D. Skin dose measurements using MOSFET and TLD for head and neck patients treated with tomotherapy. Appl Radiat Isot 2009; 67 (9): 1683–1685.Google Scholar
29. Chuang, C F, Verhey, L J, Xia, P. Investigation of the use of MOSFET for clinical IMRT dosimetric verification. Med Phys 2002; 29 (6): 1109–1115.Google Scholar
30. Koenig, T R, Wolff, D, Mettler, F A, Wagner, L K. Skin injuries from fluroscopically guided procedures. E. Characteristics of radiation injury. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 3–11.Google Scholar
31. Mettler, F A Jr, Koenig, T R, Wagner, L K, Kelsey, C A. Radiation injuries after fluoroscopic procedures. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 2002; 23 (5): 428–442.Google Scholar
32. Hadley, S W. Effects of immobilization mask material on surface dose. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2005; 6 (1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Fabricated anthropomorphic Perspex head and neck phantom for dosimetric verification of treatment delivery.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Head cube phantom (Scanditronix Wellhőver) and Perspex cube phantom.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment planning for Perspex phantom delivered nine beams with 2.12 Gy per fraction.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Immobilisation Klarity mask cover the phantom for head, neck and shoulder.

Figure 4

Table 1 Comparison point doses between the average (AV.) of three intensity-modulated radiation therapy inter-fractions measured doses using standard and Perspex cube phantoms on the surfaces

Figure 5

Table 2 Comparison point between average variation of measured skin dose for five patients plan at six regions between using a mask and without a mask

Figure 6

Figure 5 In vivo dose measurements at left eye regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 7

Figure 6 In vivo dose measurements at right eye regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 8

Figure 7 In vivo dose measurements at right buccal regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 9

Figure 8 In vivo dose measurements at left buccal regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 10

Figure 9 In vivo dose measurements at right neck regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 11

Figure 10 In vivo dose measurements at left neck regions and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients. TPS, treatment planning system.

Figure 12

Table 3 In vivo average (av.) of three fractions skin dose measurements and intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plan dose values for five patients transfer plans on the phantom at different head and neck surface regions