Evaluation of the dosimetric performance of BANG3® polymer gel

• Published in: Physics in medicine & biology Vol. 50; no. 8; pp. 1717 - 1726
• Main Authors: MacDougall, N D, Miquel, M E, Wilson, D J, Keevil, S F, Smith, M A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England IOP Publishing 21.04.2005
• Subjects: Dose-Response Relationship, Radiation; Equipment Design; Equipment Failure Analysis; Gels - analysis; Gels - chemistry; Gels - radiation effects; Polymers - analysis; Polymers - chemistry; Polymers - radiation effects; Radiation Dosage; Radiometry - instrumentation; Radiometry - methods; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity
• ISSN: 0031-9155; 1361-6560
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/8/007

New radiotherapy techniques call for three-dimensional dosimetric methods with high spatial resolution. Radiation sensitive gels read out using MRI T(2) mapping provide an extremely promising option, and commercially available BANG polymer gels provide a convenient route into gel dosimetry. Gel dosimetry is dependent on the ability to calibrate gel response against radiation dose. This in turn is dependent on the reproducibility of response both between gels irradiated to the same dose and for a single gel sample over time. This study aims to evaluate the performance of a commercially available BANG gel. Our experimental arrangement gave excellent precision of radiation delivery (<0.2%) and reproducibility of T(2) measurement (<0.5%). Seven groups of 10 test tubes containing BANG3 gel were irradiated in 0.5 Gy steps between 0 and 3 Gy. A further four groups of four samples were irradiated in 2 Gy steps between 4 and 10 Gy. The gel samples were identical and derived from the same manufacturing batch. MR imaging was carried out four days after irradiation and then at weekly intervals for four weeks. Short-term variation in gel response can readily be corrected using reference samples. Longer term systematic drift of the gel calibration curve was observed relative to reference samples prepared in-house for quality assurance purposes. This implies that read-out of the calibration gels and dosimetry phantom must be performed at the same time after irradiation, or errors of up to 25% may be incurred. Precision of gel response did not change significantly over time. The observation of significantly different T(2) values both prior to irradiation and following irradiation to the same dose (variation up to 15%) illustrates the current difficulties associated with BANG3 gel calibration and constrains the practical utility of these commercially available gels for clinical radiation dosimetry.