J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2014;26(3)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
DOSE MEASUREMENT OF COBALT-60 RADIOTHERAPY BEAMS IN
TREATMENT FIELDS
Sajjad Ahmed Memon, Asrar Ahmad Cheema, Naeem Ahmed Laghari, Fayaz Hussain Mangi
Nuclear Institute of Medicine And Radiotherapy (NIMRA), Jamshoro, Pakistan
Background: Radiation therapy is a complex process with multiple steps, each of which has an
impact on the quality of treatment. Accurate dosimetry is a critical step during the radiotherapy of
cancer patients.The aim of the present study was to measure and evaluate the doses of two cobalt-
60 (60Co) teletherapy units GWXJ80 of NPIC China and Theratron 780 of AECL Canada at
various points within fields for different field sizes. Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive
study was done to measure the 60Co doses in the treatment fields.The dose measurements were
done in air and 30×30×30 cm3 Phantom at 80 cm SSD by using calibrated NE 2570 Farmer
Electrometer & NE 2571 Farmer Ionization Chamber and percentage of doses were calculated.
Results: The results showed that 60% central area of all fields ranging from 100–98.79% and
100–96.12% for GWXJ80 in the air and phantom, whereas for Theratron 780, they were ranging
from 100–98.50% and 100–96.45% in air and phantom respectively. The percentages of doses at
the edges for GWXJ80 and Theratron 780 in the air were 75.39–38.66% & 85.65–46.47%
respectively and they were 82.22–40.39% & 49.05–24.55% respectively in phantom.
Conclusions: The doses within 60% central area of fields in air were higher than phantom for
both teletherapy units. The doses at field edges in air were lower in GWXJ80 than Theratron 780
whereas in phantom they were vice versa. But all were in the acceptable range as recommended by
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements.
Keywords:Cobalt-60 ( 60Co), Quality Assurance, Dosimetry, Exposure, Central Area, Edge
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2014;26(3):279–82
INTRODUCTION fields, and also at 1 cm increments from the centre of
Cobalt-60 (60Co) has been used effectively for more both field setups at 80 cm Source Surface Distance
than six decades to treat a variety of cancers (SSD), according to the IAEA protocols.5,6
worldwide, especially in poorer countries such as Quality assurance (QA) during the radiation
Pakistan. Radiation therapy is a complex process therapy treatment planning process is mandatory to
with multiple steps, each of which has an impact on minimize undue exposure,9 and beam dosimetry of
60
the quality of treatment. Accurate dosimetry is a Co teletherapy units is an essential QA procedure,
critical step during the radiotherapy of cancer as described in the IAEA Technical Documents
patients.1 Generally, essential radiation therapy (IAEA TECDOCs).10,11 The present study was
dosimetric parameters are measured using a conducted to measure and evaluate the radiation
homogeneous water phantom.2 External photon beam doses received by the target organ and the
radiotherapy is usually performed using more than surrounding healthy organs in external radiation
one radiation beam, in order to achieve a uniform treatment.4 The fundamental goal of radiotherapy is
dose distribution inside the target tissues and the to deliver a specific radiation dose to the prescribed
lowest possible dose to the healthy tissues target area with the least dose to normal tissues12 and
surrounding the target.3 To protect against undue radiation oncology demands high accuracy in the
exposure to ionizing radiation, it is necessary to delivery of dose to the tumour and surrounding
determine the radiation dose for specific body organs tissues.13 It has been reported14 that a current
and tissues4 by using International Atomic Energy reasonable figure for the accuracy requirement of the
Agency (IAEA) protocols.5,6 Accurate dose prescribed dose to the target volume is 2–3%. This is
calculations are essential during the radiotherapeutic based on the assumption that the much referred
treatment of patients, and the overall dose delivery accuracy requirement figure is 5% as documented by
error to patients should not exceed 5%, as ICRU.7
recommended by the International Commission on MATERIAL AND METHODS
Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU)7 and the
Nordic Association Of Clinical Physicists (NACO).8 This cross-sectional descriptive study was done to
Therefore, this study was conducted to measure the measure the 60Co doses in the treatment fields. The
doses of 60Co teletherapy units in a water phantom at direct measurement of the dose distribution in the
a depth of 5 cm and in the air at the centre of the patient is impossible in actuality. For a successful
outcome of patient radiation treatment, it is vital that
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/26-3/Memon.pdf` 279
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2014;26(3)
the dose distribution in the irradiated volume be
known precisely and accurately. 15 The doses were
measured according to IAEA protocols 5,6 at mid
and at different points with 01 cm increment
intervals from the mid within the field for 10×10
cm 2, 15×15 cm 2 and 20×20 cm2 at 80 cm SSD
source to surface distance (SSD) to the
surface of the chamber with 0.551 g/cm2 thick
Derlin buildup cap in the air and in phantom of
30×30×30 cm3 at 05 cm depth with the help of
Farmer NE2750 electrometer and Farmer NE2571, Figure-2: Percentage of Doses in phantom at 05
0.6cc Ionization Chamber for 60 seconds for two cm depth for Theratron 780
machines (GWXJ80 of NPIC China and Theratron
780 of Atomic Energy Company Limited Canada)
installed at Nuclear Institute of Medicine And
Radiotherapy (NIMRA) Jamshoro, Pakistan. After
measuring doses at mid and different locations
within fields, the percentage of doses at different
points and geometric edges as described in IAEA’s
book16 with respect to the mid of the respective
fields were calculated. The gantry and collimator
angles of the 60Co teletherapy units were kept at 0
Figure-3: Percentage of doses in air for GWXJ80
degrees for these measurements. Khan FM17
mentioned the dose of 60% central part of the field
size as 97% whereas at the edge the dose level lies
between 90% and 50%.
RESULTS
The doses at mid, different points within fields have
been summarized in table-1 and table-2 whereas
their percentage at different points with respect to
mid of respective fields have been shown in figure-1
to figure-4. The calculated results shows that 60%
central area of all fields are ranging from 100– Figure-4: Percentage of doses in air for Theratron 780
98.79% and 100–96.12% for GWXJ80 in the air and
phantom, whereas for Theratron 780 the results are
ranging from 100–98.50% and 100–96.45% in air
and phantom respectively The percentages of doses
at the edges (1.0–1.5 cm) for GWXJ80 and
Theratron 780 in the air are 75.39–38.66% and
85.65–46.47% respectively and they are 82.22–
40.39% and 49.05–24.55% respectively in phantom.
Figure-5: Cross-sectional isodose distribution in a
plane perpendicular to the central axis of the beam.
Figure-1: Percentage of doses in phantom at 05 Isodose values are normalized to 100% at the centre
cm depth for GWXJ80 of field. The dashed line shows the boundary of the
field.17
280 http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/26-3/Memon.pdf`
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2014;26(3)
Table-1. Doses (Gy) in phantom at 05 cm depth
Field Size
Machine Field Mid Away from Field Center (cm)
(cm2)
1 2 3 4 4.5 5 6 7 7.5 8 9 9.5 10
10×10 1.1949 1.1920 1.1851 1.1674 1.0395 0.8527 0.4917
GWXJ80 15×15 1.2589 1.2589 1.2559 1.2490 1.2313 1.2100 1.1920 1.1605 0.9756 0.5085
20×20 1.3002 1.3002 1.3002 1.2953 1.2854 1.2760 1.2638 1.2510 1.2264 1.1895 1.1576 1.0690 0.9855 0.5380
10×10 0.3797 0.3797 0.3748 0.3699 0.2109 0.1589 0.0932
Theratron
15×15 0.4023 0.4023 0.4023 0.3993 0.3993 0.3943 0.3807 0.3679 0.1913 0.1099
780
20×20 0.4140 0.4140 0.4140 0.4121 0.4072 0.4050 0.4023 0.3993 0.3875 0.3765 0.3601 0.2031 0.1521 0.1275
Table-2: Doses (Gy) in air
Field Size Field
Machine Away from Field Center (cm)
(cm2) Mid
1 2 3 4 4.5 5 6 7 7.5 8 9 9.5 10
10×10 1.4789 1.4789 1.4739 1.4609 1.2548 1.0626 0.6742
GWXJ80 15×15 1.5187 1.5187 1.5187 1.5107 1.4988 1.4900 1.4739 1.3813 0.9730 0.6642
20×20 1.5456 1.5456 1.5456 1.5406 1.5306 1.5275 1.5137 1.4938 1.4639 1.4314 1.3892 1.1652 0.7569 0.5975
10×10 0.4629 0.4629 0.4629 0.4559 0.3965 0.3172 0.2151
Theratron
15×15 0.4728 0.4728 0.4728 0.4728 0.4708 0.4700 0.4678 0.4510 0.3618 0.2627
780
20×20 0.4807 0.4807 0.4807 0.4807 0.4777 0.4760 0.4758 0.4758 0.4708 0.4695 0.4658 0.4163 0.3429 0.2795
DISCUSSION In radiotherapy treatment, dosimetry is a
very noteworthy aspect as treatment planning is
In our study 60% central area of all fields are ranging
based on the dosimetric data obtained24 and accuracy
from 100–98.79% and 100–96.12% for GWXJ80 in
in dosimetric parameters is a critical factor in
the air and phantom, whereas for Theratron 780 the
radiation treatment of cancer patients.2 The present
results are ranging from 100–98.50% and 100–
study was initiated to measure and evaluate the
96.45% in air and phantom respectively, which
radiation doses received by the target organ and the
presented reasonable dose uniformity (the acceptable
surrounding healthy organs in external radiation
error is 5%).7 The percentages of doses at the edges
treatment.4 The purpose of this study was not only to
(1.0–1.5 cm) for GWXJ80 and Theratron 780 in the
measure and evaluate equal distribution of dose to
air are 75.39–38.66% and 85.65–46.47% respectively
each point within the fields but also measure the
and they are 82.22–40.39% and 49.05–24.55%
doses at the edges. The doses within 60% central area
respectively in phantom. The figure-5 quoted from
of the fields were in acceptable error range of 5%
Khan FM17 shows that 97% dose lies within 60%
which offered a realistic uniform doses in that central
central part of the field size whereas at the edge the
area and the edges as mentioned in IAEA’s book16
dose level lies between 90% and 50%. Dyk and
were 86–25%. At the edges of the field, the beam
Battista18 quoted the sample data in their paper for
profile is curved and least dose was due to decrease
doses at the beam edges ranging between 80–20% or
in scattered radiation as described by Starkschall G.25
90–10%.19–22 Reda MS et al4 showed that the doses
and Khan FM.17
measured at edge points of the treatment area ranges
from 25.10–6.22% of doses at mid. For 60Co beam CONCLUSION
the dose at any depth is higher on the central beam In conclusion, the doses within 60% central area of
axis and then gradually decreases towards the beam fields in air were higher than phantom for both
edges23 and as described by Khan FM.17 teletherapy units. The doses at field edges in air were
Figure-1 to figure 4 showed the percentage lower in GWXJ80 than Theratron 780 whereas in
of doses at different points in the various fields with phantom they were higher in GWXJ80. Dyk and
the mid of the respective fields. The results show that Battista18 referred the published model data of
60% central area of all fields were within realistic
Glasgow GL et al,19 Laughlin J et al,20 Rawlinson, J
limits in air and phantom for GWXJ80 as well as for
A.21 and Sasane, JB et al22 in their paper for the doses
Theratron 780, which is in the acceptable error range at the beams’ edge between 80–20% or 90–10%. The
of 5% as recommended by ICRU.7 The percentages dosimetry of radiotherapy teletherapy machines must
of doses at the edges range between 86% and 25%. It be done in a homogeneous water phantom as
is clear from data as mentioned in table-1 and table-2 suggested by Praveenkumar RD et al2 due to
that all the doses either in phantom or in the air
particular dose distribution in target tissues.24
gradually decreases as the chamber is placed step by Due to insufficient data available for the
step away from the mid of the fields as mentioned in doses at various points within the fields and the
IAEA’s book.23
http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/26-3/Memon.pdf` 281
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2014;26(3)
percentage between these points and mid of fields, 10. International Atomic Energy Agency. Design and
implementation of a radiotherapy programme: Clinical,
verification of our results became difficult.
medical physics, radiation protection and safety aspects.
TECDOC-1040. Vienna: IAEA; 1996.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11. International Atomic Energy Agency. Quality assurance in
The authors are indebted to Mrs. Dr. Sadaf Tabasum radiotherapy. TECDOC-989. Vienna: IAEA; 1997.
Assistant Professor, Institute of Plant Sciences, 12. Novotny J. In: Accidents in radiotherapy: lack of quality
assurance, ‘Quality assurance in radiotherapy’, TECDOC-
University of Sindh, Jamshoro for her encouragement 989, Vienna, IAEA; 1997.p. 19–34.
about research work and her help during writing this 13. Samat SB, Evans CJ, Kadni T, Dolah MT. Accurate
paper. measurement of exposure rate from a 60Co teletherapy
The authors wish to thank NIMRA staff source: deviations from the inverse-square law. Brit J Radiol
2000;73:867–77.
working on teletherapy units specially Mr. Ghulam 14. Radiation dose in radiotherapy from prescription to delivery.
Qadir Principle Scientific Assistant and Mr. Wajid TECDOC-896, Vienna: IAEA; 1996.p. 281.
Hussain Principle Tech for their assistance and help, 15. Podgorsak EB. External photon beams, Physical aspects. In:
without their help this study cannot be commenced Radiation Oncology Physics: A handbook for teachers and
students’. Vienna: IAEA; 2005.p. 169.
and successfully completed. 16. Podgorsak EB. External photon beams: Physical aspects. In:
Radiation Oncology Physics: A handbook for teachers and
REFERENCES students’. Vienna: IAEA; 2005.p. 195.
1. Dyk JV. Megavoltage radiation therapy: Meeting the 17. Khan FM, editor. The physics of radiation therapy 4th
technological needs, standard and codes of practice in Edition, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.p. 176–
medical radiation dosimetry proceedings of an international 8.
symposium; 2002 November 25–28; Vienna: IAEA; 2002. 18. Dyk JV, Battista JJ. Cobalt-60: An Old modality, a renewed
2. Praveenkumar RD, Santhosh KP, Augustine A. Estimation of challenge. UK: Physics Department London. Available at:
inhomogenity correction factors for a Co-60 beam using http://www.theratronics.ca/press/VanDyk.pdf
Monte Carlo simulation. J Canc Res Ther 2011;7:308–13. 19. Glasgow GL, Kurup RG, Leybovich L, Wang S, Fatyga M.
3. Parker W, Patrocinio H. Clinical treatment planning in Dosimetry and use of Co-60 100cm source-to-axis distance
external photon beam radiotherapy. In: Podgorsak EB, editor. teletherapy units. Curr Oncol 1996;3:17–25.
Radiation oncology physics: A handbook for teachers and 20. Laughlin J, Mohan R, Kutcher GJ. Choice of optimum
students. Vienna: IAEA; 2005.p. 219. megavoltage energy for accelerators for photon beam
4. Reda MS, Massoud E, Hanafy MS, Bashter II, Amin EA. treatment, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1986;12:1551–7.
Monte Carlo dose calculations for breast radiotherapy using 21. Rawlinson JA. The choice of equipment for external beam
Co-60 gamma rays. J Nuclear Radiat Phys 2006;1:61–72. radiotherapy. Proceedings of the IAEA Seminar on
5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Technical Reports Organization and Training of Radiotherapy; Cairo, Africa;
Series No. 277, Absorbed dose determination in photon and 1989 Dec; IAEA;.p. 11–5.
electron beams. 2 nd ed. Vienna: IAEA; 1997. 22. Sasane JB, Iyer PS. Relevance of radiation penumbra in high-
6. International Atomic Energy Agency. TRS-398, Absorbed energy photon beam therapy. Strahlentherapie
dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an 1981;157:658–61.
international code of practice for dosimetry based on 23. Podgorsak EB. External photon beams: Physical aspects. In:
standards of absorbed dose to water. Vienna: IAEA; 2000. Radiation Oncology Physics: A handbook for teachers and
7. International Commission on Radiation Units and students. Vienna: IAEA; 2005.p. 199.
Measurements. Prescribing, recording and reporting photon 24. Buzdar SA, Rao MA, Nazir A. An analysis of depth dose
beam therapy. Report 50, USA: ICRU; 1993. characteristics of phtons in water. J Ayub Med Coll
8. Nordic Association of Clinical Physicist. Specification of 2009;21(4):4,41–5.
dose delivery in radiation therapy. NACP; 1994. 25. Starkschall G, Ph.D. Presentation on dose distribution.
9. International Atomic Energy Agency. Commissioning and Department of Radiation Physics, U.T. M.D. Anderson
quality assurance of computerized planning systems for Cancer Center, Texas, Available at:
radiation treatment of cancer. Technical report series 430. www.uthgsbsmedphys.org/RadOncRes/13b-
Vienna: IAEA; 2004. IsodoseDistributions.pdf.
Address for Correspondence:
Sajjad Ahmed Memon, Senior Scientist, Nuclear Institute of Medicine And Radiotherapy (NIMRA) Jamshoro,
Pakistan.
Cell: +92-300-3055291
Email:
[email protected]282 http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/26-3/Memon.pdf`
