Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2026
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Functional intercomparison of intraoperative radiotherapy equipment - Photon Radiosurgery System
Kris S Armoogum1, John M Parry, Salam K Souliman
1Department of Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Tayside University Hospitals NHS Trust, Dundee, UK. kris.armoogum@nhs.net
Background:
Intraoperative Radiotherapy (IORT) is a method by which a critical radiation dose is delivered to the tumour bed immediately after surgical excision. It is being investigated whether a single high dose of radiation will impart the same clinical benefit as a standard course of external beam therapy. Our centre has four Photon Radiosurgery Systems (PRS) currently used to irradiate breast and neurological sites.
Materials And Methods:
The PRS comprises an x-ray generator, control console, quality assurance tools and a mobile gantry. We investigated the dosimetric characteristics of each source and its performance stability over a period of time. We investigated half value layer, output diminution factor, internal radiation monitor (IRM) reproducibility and depth-doses in water. The half value layer was determined in air by the broad beam method, using high purity aluminium attenuators. To quantify beam hardening at clinical depths, solid water attenuators of 5 and 10 mm were placed between the x-ray probe and attenuators. The ion chamber current was monitored over 30 minutes to deduce an output diminution factor. IRM reproducibility was investigated under various exposures. Depth-dose curves in water were obtained at distances up to 35 mm from the probe.
Results:
The mean energies for the beam attenuated by 5 and 10 mm of solid water were derived from ICRU Report 17 and found to be 18 and 24 keV. The average output level over a period of 30 minutes was found to be 99.12%. The average difference between the preset IRM limit and the total IRM count was less than 0.5%. For three x-ray sources, the average difference between the calculated and actual treatment times was found to be 0.62% (n = 30). The beam attenuation in water varied by approximately 1/r(3).
Conclusion:
The x-ray sources are stable over time. Most measurements were found to lie within the manufacturer's tolerances and an intercomparison of these checks suggests that the four x-ray sources have similar performance characteristics.
