Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026

08:34
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Study on surface dose generated in prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment.
James C L Chow1, Grigor N Grigorov, Rob B Barnett
1Medical Physics Department, Grand River Regional Cancer Center, Grand River Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. james.chow@rmp.uhn.on.ca
Summary
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer can increase surface dose compared to traditional 4-beam box techniques. However, IMRT offers a more even surface dose distribution, potentially reducing skin complications.
Area of Science:
- Medical Physics
- Radiation Oncology
- Radiotherapy Technology
Background:
- Prostate intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a widely used technique.
- Understanding surface dose is crucial for predicting and mitigating potential skin toxicity.
- Comparing IMRT with traditional 4-beam box (FBB) techniques is essential for optimizing treatment planning.
Purpose of the Study:
- To measure and compare surface doses from 6- and 15-MV prostate IMRT and 15-MV FBB irradiations.
- To investigate the contribution of the dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) to surface dose.
- To evaluate the effects of photon beam energy and the number of beams on surface dose in IMRT.
Main Methods:
- Utilized Pinnacle treatment planning system (version 6) with CT scans from a Rando Phantom.
- Generated IMRT plans using 5, 7, and 9 beams with 6- and 15-MV photon beams (step-and-shoot technique).
- Employed metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor detectors for surface dose measurements at the central beam axis.
Main Results:
- 6-MV IMRT yielded higher surface doses than 15-MV IMRT for the same number of beams.
- Increasing the number of beams in 15-MV IMRT increased surface dose (0.86% to 1.19%); for 6-MV IMRT, it decreased slightly (1.33% to 1.24%).
- IMRT generally resulted in 15%-30% higher surface doses than 15-MV FBB, attributed to beam count and monitor units.
Conclusions:
- Prostate IMRT, particularly with more beams, can lead to increased surface dose compared to FBB.
- Despite higher average surface dose, IMRT's even distribution avoids focal hot spots, potentially reducing skin complications.
- Dynamic MLC movement influences surface dose distribution, highlighting the importance of dose-intensity mapping.
