Are you H.C. Wang?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)0.91 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In vivo dosimetry was performed for the head and neck carcinoma patients during the treatment of a large photon field using MOSFETs. This study followed the protocols recommended by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. A total of 32 portals belonging to 12 patients were under investigation. Results showed that the deviation between in vivo midline doses and planned target doses was partly due to the manual dose calculations in the treatment planning which used the patient geometric thickness rather than the radiological thickness. Other factors responsible for this deviation included the difficult positioning of MOSFETs on the face mask, the asymmetric positioning of MOSFETs on the left and right sides of the mask, and the asymmetric tissue inhomogeneities with respect to the body midline. To reduce the deviation contributed from these factors, in vivo midline doses were calculated by averaging the results for each bilaterally opposed portals and compared with corresponding planned target doses. This comparison showed that MOSFET dosimeters are suitable for in vivo dosimetry of the present study.
    Radiation Measurements. 01/2008;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In vivo dosimetry was implemented for treatments of head and neck cancers in the large fields. Diode and thermoluminescence dosemeter (TLD) measurements were carried out for the linear accelerators of 6 MV photon beams. ESTRO in vivo dosimetry protocols were followed in the determination of midline doses from measurements of entrance and exit doses. Of the fields monitored by diodes, the maximum absolute deviation of measured midline doses from planned target doses was 8%, with the mean value and the standard deviation of -1.0 and 2.7%. If planned target doses were calculated using radiological water equivalent thicknesses rather than patient geometric thicknesses, the maximum absolute deviation dropped to 4%, with the mean and the standard deviation of 0.7 and 1.8%. For in vivo dosimetry monitored by TLDs, the shift in mean dose remained small but the statistical precision became poor.
    Radiation Protection Dosimetry 02/2004; 111(1):45-50. · 0.91 Impact Factor