Document Type: Original Research


1 PhD, Department of Radiotherapy, King George’s Medical University, UP, Lucknow, India

2 MSc, Department of Radiology & Radiotherapy, UCMS, Delhi, India

3 MSc, Department of Radiotherapy, King George’s Medical University, UP, Lucknow, India

4 MD, Department of Radiotherapy, King George’s Medical University, UP, Lucknow, India


Background: In general, radiotherapy treatment planning is performed using the virtual bolus. It is necessary to investigate physical bolus in comparison to virtual one.
Objectives: In the present study, first, radiological properties of superflab Gel bolus and Paraffin wax bolus was investigated in terms of their relative electron density. Then, dosimetric performance of both the bolus (i.e. Gel and Parafin wax) was compared with Virtual bolus.
Material and Methods: In This experimental study, the radiological property of Wax and Gel boluses was investigated using two methods. In one, the relative electron density of both the Gel and Wax boluses was calculated by measuring their linear attenuation coefficient where in another method relative electron density was calculated by recording their CT No directly from their CT scan. Later CT scan of solid water slab phantom (dimension 30x30x15 cm3), with physical boluses (i.e. Gel and Wax bolus) of appropriate thicknesses required to deliver a dose of 200 cGy at Dmax using 4 MV, 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams, was taken. These CT data sets were retrieved to TPS. A plan was done to deliver a dose of 200 cGy at Dmax using Single 4 MV, 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams. Dose at depths Dmax, 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm and 5 cm was recorded. Using this similar method, doses at depths viz Dmax, 1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm and 5 cm was recorded for the Gel and Wax boluses. The differences in dose of gel and wax bolus from virtual bolus were recorded for comparison of their dosimetric performance.
Results: The measured (calculated) relative electron density of wax and Gel bolus was found to be 0.958 (0.926) and 0.923 (0.907), respectively. Variation in dosimetric performance of Gel and Wax with reference to Virtual bolus was studied. However, on average, Gel bolus was more consistent with virtual bolus.
Conclusion: To avoid any dose difference between, delivered (using physical bolus) and planned (using virtual bolus), the physical boluses should be investigated for their dosimetric performance in comparison to virtual bolus. The results obtained and methodology used in this study can be applied in routine radiotherapy practices.


  1. El Shahat K, El Saeid A, Attalla E, Yassin A. Comparative Study between Measurement Data and Treatment Planning System (TPS) in Small Fields for High Energy Photon Beams. ISRN Oncol. 2014;2014:901436. doi: 10.1155/2014/901436. PubMed PMID: 24944831; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4040206.
  2. Catli S. High-density dental implants and radiotherapy planning: evaluation of effects on dose distribution using pencil beam convolution algorithm and Monte Carlo method. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015;16:46-52. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5612. PubMed PMID: 26699323; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5690165.
  3. Kuwahata N, Fujita H, Yamanishi H, Okazaki E, Fukuda H. Dosimetric Comparison of Irregular Surface Compensator and Field-in-Field for Whole Breast Radiotherapy. J Med Phys. 2018;43:79-84. doi: 10.4103/jmp.JMP_73_17. PubMed PMID: 29962684; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6020626.
  4. Fujita H, Kuwahata N, Hattori H, Kinoshita H, Fukuda H. Improvement of dose homogeneity with irregular surface compensator in whole brain radiotherapy. J Radiother Pract. 2016;15:269-75. doi: 10.1017/s1460396916000212.
  5. Banaee N, Nedaie HA, Nosrati H, Nabavi M, Naderi M. Dose measurement of different bolus materials on surface dose. J Radioprot Res. 2013;1:10-3. doi: 10.12966/jrr.08.02.2013.
  6. Tyran M, Tallet A, Resbeut M, Ferre M, Favrel V, Fau P, et al. Safety and benefit of using a virtual bolus during treatment planning for breast cancer treated with arc therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19:463-72. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12398. PubMed PMID: 29959819; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6123145.
  7. Humphries SM, Boyd K, Cornish P, Newman FD. Comparison of Super Stuff and paraffin wax bolus in radiation therapy of irregular surfaces. Med Dosim. 1996;21:155-7. PubMed PMID: 8899680.
  8. Malaescu I, Marin CN, Spunei M. Comparative Study on the Surface Dose of Some Bolus Materials. Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol. 2015;4:348-52. doi: 10.4236/ijmpcero.2015.44041.
  9. Verma TR, Painuly NK, Mishra SP, Singh N, Bhatt MLB, Jamal N, et al. Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of various algorithms in lung equivalent inhomogeneity: Comparison of calculated data with Gafchromic film measured results. J Cancer Res Ther. 2017;13:1007-14. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.168992. PubMed PMID: 29237967.
  10. Kumar A, Sharma SD, Arya AK, Gupta S, Shrotriya D. Effect of low-density heterogeneities in telecobalt therapy and validation of dose calculation algorithm of a treatment planning system. J Med Phys. 2011;36:198-204. doi: 10.4103/0971-6203.89967. PubMed PMID: 22228928; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3249730.
  11. Brown S, Bailey DL, Willowson K, Baldock C. Investigation of the relationship between linear attenuation coefficients and CT Hounsfield units using radionuclides for SPECT. Appl Radiat Isot. 2008;66:1206-12. doi: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2008.01.002. PubMed PMID: 18662614.