% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Muoz:290347,
author = {I. D. Muñoz$^*$ and O. Van Hoey and A. Parisi and N.
Bassler and L. Grzanka and M. De Saint-Hubert and A. Vaniqui
and P. Olko and M. Sądel and L. Stolarczyk and A.
Vestergaard and O. Jaekel$^*$ and E. G. Yukihara and J. B.
Christensen},
title = {{A}ssessment of fluence- and dose-averaged linear energy
transfer with passive luminescence detectors in clinical
proton beams.},
journal = {Physics in medicine and biology},
volume = {69},
number = {13},
issn = {0031-9155},
address = {Bristol},
publisher = {IOP Publ.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2024-01074},
pages = {135004},
year = {2024},
note = {#EA:E040#},
abstract = {This work investigates the use of passive luminescence
detectors to determine different types of averaged linear
energy transfer $(\overline{LET})$ for the energies relevant
to proton therapy. The experimental results are compared to
reference values obtained from Monte Carlo
simulations.Optically stimulated luminescence detectors
(OSLDs), fluorescent nuclear track detectors (FNTDs), and
two different groups of thermoluminescence detectors (TLDs)
were irradiated at four different radiation qualities. For
each irradiation, the fluence- $(\overline{LET}f)$ and
dose-averaged LET $(\overline{LET}d)$ were determined. For
both quantities, two sub-types of averages were calculated,
either considering contributions from primary and secondary
protons or from all protons and heavier charged particles.
Both simulated and experimental data were used in
combination with a phenomenological model to estimate the
relative biological effectiveness (RBE).All types of
$\overline{LET}$ could be assessed with the detectors. The
experimental determination of $\overline{LET}fis$ in
agreement with reference data obtained from simulations
across all measurement techniques and types of averaging. On
the other hand, $\overline{LET}dcan$ present challenges as a
radiation quality metric to describe the detector response
in mixed particle fields. However, excluding secondaries
heavier than protons from the $\overline{LET}dcalculation,$
as their contribution to the luminescence is suppressed by
ionization quenching, leads to equal accuracy between
$\overline{LET}fand$ $\overline{LET}d.$ Assessment of RBE
through the experimentally determined
$\overline{LET}dvalues$ agrees with independently acquired
reference values, indicating that the investigated detectors
can determine $\overline{LET}$ with sufficient accuracy for
proton therapy.OSLDs, TLDs, and FNTDs can be used to
determine $\overline{LET}$ and RBE in proton therapy. With
the capability to determine dose through ionization
quenching corrections derived from $\overline{LET},$ OSLDs
and TLDs can simultaneously ascertain dose,
$\overline{LET},$ and RBE. This makes passive detectors
appealing for measurements in phantoms, facilitating the
validation of clinical treatment plans or experiments
related to proton therapy.},
keywords = {FNTD (Other) / LET (Other) / Linear energy transfer (Other)
/ Luminescence detectors (Other) / OSLD (Other) / TLD
(Other)},
cin = {E040},
ddc = {530},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:38774985},
doi = {10.1088/1361-6560/ad4e8e},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/290347},
}