Physical aspects of total-body irradiation at the Middlesex Hospital (UCL group of hospitals), London 1988-1993: II. In vivo planning and dosimetry.

Part II of this paper gives the results of applying the TBI methods described in part I, to in vivo patient planning and dosimetry. Patients are planned on nine CT based body slices, five of which pass through the lungs. Planned doses are verified with ten silicon diodes applied bi-laterally to five body sites, at each treatment. LiF TLDs are applied to seven other body sites at the first treatment only. For 84 patients and at least 1016 measurements per body site with the diodes, the mean measured total doses agreed with planned doses within at most 2% except at lung levels, where the mean measured dose was 3% too low. Standard deviations of the measurements about the mean were between 2.4 and 3.1%. For the LiF TLDs, the mean measured doses for all seven body sites were with in +/- 5% of planned doses. A separate assessment of measured entrance and transmitted doses showed that the former agreed well with planned doses, but that the latter tended to be low, especially over the lungs, and that they had a wider dispersion. Possible reasons for this are discussed. These results show measurement uncertainties similar to those for non-TBI treatments of Nilsson et al, Leunens et al and Essers et al. An analysis of the treatment plans showed a mean dose inhomogeneity in the body (75 patients, nine slices) of 19 +/- 6.0% (1 s.d.) and in the lungs (40 patients, five slices) of 9.2 +/- 2.85% (1 s.d.). The conclusions are that, overall, the methods are reasonably satisfactory but that, with an extra effort, even closer agreement between measured and planned doses and a further limited reduction in the body dose inhomogeneity could be obtained. However, if it were thought desirable to make a substantial reduction in the dose inhomogeneity in the body and lungs, this could only be achieved with the available equipment by changing from lateral to anterior-posterior irradiation and any potential advantages of this change would have to be balanced against a likely deterioration in patient comfort and an increase in treatment set-up times.