Effect of Hip Prosthesis on Photon Beam Characteristics in Radiological Physics

Bhushan, Manindra; Tripathi, Deepak; Yadav, Girigesh; Kumar, Lalit; Dewan, Abhinav; Kumar, Gourav

doi:10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.6.1731

Effect of Hip Prosthesis on Photon Beam Characteristics in Radiological Physics

Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

¹ Division of Medical Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi (India)-110085, India.

² Amity School of Applied Sciences, Amity University (AUUP), NOIDA, India.

³ Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow (UP), India.

10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.6.1731

Abstract

Introduction: Aim of study is to investigate the effect of hip prosthesis on 6 and 15 MV photon beam energies. Materials and Methods: Prosthesis was kept at the level of tray position. The measurements were done on Varian Clinac-iX linac. Customized prosthesis, termed as Prosthetic Metal Implant (PMI) was made up of wrought austenitic stainless steel rod and covered with paraffin-wax. ‘Standard prosthesis’ was made up of wrought titanium alloy. The dose profiles were measured for three field sizes i.e. 5, 10 and 20 cm at 100 cm SSD for 6 and 15 MV energies. The perturbation index (PI) was also calculated. Results: Perturbation caused by standard prosthesis was approximately 50% higher than that of PMI. This result may be due to difference in dimension and not because of material composition. Variation of central axis dose might be due to the dimensions of PMI used for experiment which gave intermediate response (e.g. 102.1%, 141.0% and 117.7% for Open, Standard and PMI respectively for 10x10 cm2 field size, 10 cm depth and 15MV photon beam setup )as compared to the ‘open’ and ‘standard’ prosthesis. Percentage dose at 10 cm for 6MV photon increased rapidly with field-size for PMI. But, for 15MV photon, difference was not significant. Surface dose (Ds) for PMI remains significantly higher for smaller field. Conclusion: The perturbation index varied from 0.05 to 0.22 for the measured energies and gave an idea to the planner to assess the behavior of the prosthesis. This range is applicable for both type of implants and for all clinical field-sizes. The attenuation caused by the prosthesis was significant and this effect should be considered in the treatment planning calculations.

Keywords