교정정수 변화에 의한 원통형이온함의 안정성 평가

Evaluation of the Long-Term Stability for the Cylindrical Ionization Chambers

  • 라정은 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 의공학교실) ;
  • 홍주영 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 의공학교실) ;
  • 김귀야 (식품의약품안전청 방사선표준과) ;
  • 임천일 (식품의약품안전청 방사선표준과) ;
  • 정희교 (식품의약품안전청 방사선표준과) ;
  • 신동오 (경희대학교 의과대학 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 서태석 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 의공학교실)
  • Rah Jeong-Eun (Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Hong Ju-Young (Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim Gwe-Ya (Radiation Standards Division, Korea Food & Drug Administration) ;
  • Lim Chun-Il (Radiation Standards Division, Korea Food & Drug Administration) ;
  • Jeong Hee-Kyo (Radiation Standards Division, Korea Food & Drug Administration) ;
  • Shin Dong-Oh (Department of Radiation Oncology, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Suh Tea-Suk (Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • 발행 : 2006.06.01

초록

목적: 식품의약품안전청(Korea Food Drug Administration, KFDA)의 도움을 받아 1998년부터 2004년까지 장기간에 걸친 교정정수의 분석을 통해 원통형이온함의 모델별 안정성을 확인하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: 치료방사선기관에서 교정을 의뢰한 이온함 중 Farmer형의 원통형이온함만을 대상으로 하였으며 모델은 PTW사의 30001 (30006), 30013, 30002, 30004, 23333과 Capintec사의 PR06C, NE사의 2571, Exradin사의 A12 그리고 Wellhofer사의 FC65G (IC70) 등 총 9개 종류의 이온함에 대해 에어커마 교정정수 및 물흡수선량 교정정수를 분석하였으며 에어커마 교정정수를 이용하여 계산한 물흡수선량 교정정수(cal. $N_{D,W}$)와 실제측정에 의해 결정된 물흡수선량 교정정수(mea. $N_{D,W}$)를 상호 비교하였다. 결과: 교정정수 변화를 분석해 본 결과, PTW사의 30013 (30006), Wellhofer사의 FC65G (IC70) 그리고 NE사의 2571 이온함의 경우 측정 표준편차 0.2% 이내에서 잘 일치하여 다른 모델의 이온함에 비해 안정된 값을 가지는 것으로 나타났으며 계산에 의한 물흡수선량 교정정수와 실제 측정에 의해 결정된 물흡수선량 교정정수를 비교 분석한 결과는 모든 이온함에서 측정에 의한 물흡수선량 교정정수가 약 1.0% 큰 것으로 나타났다. 결론: 본 연구에서는 원통형이온함의 교정정수 값들에 대하여 장기간의 안정성 평가를 토대로 임상에서 요구되는 이온함의 선택 기준을 제시함으로써 표준체계에 따른 이온함의 선택 뫼 선량측정의 정확성을 향상시킬 것으로 기대한다.

Purpose: To analyze the long-term stability of Farmer-type cylindrical ionization chambers by calibration factor provided from the KFDA (Korea Food Drug Administration) Materials and Methods: The cylindrical ionization chambers used in this study were the PTW 30001 (30006), 30013, 30002, 30004, 23333, the Capintec PR06C, the WE 2571, the Exradin A12 and the Wellhofer FC65G (IC70). We were analyzed that the $N_k$ and $N_{D.W}$ calibration factor for the cylindrical chambers and compared between the measured $N_{D.W}$ and calculated $N_{D.W}$ calibration factor. Results: We have observed that the long-term stability of the PTW 30013 (30006), the Wellhofer FC65G (IC70) and the NE 2571 has varied within 0.2%. The measured $N_{D,W}$ calibration factor was about 1.0% higher than the calculated $N_{D,W}$ that determined by the $N_k$ calibration factor. Conclusion: The study has evaluated that the long-term stability of the cylindrical chambers through analysis for the $N_k\;and\;N_{D,W}$ calibration factor. It has contributed to the improvement of clinical electron dosimetry in radiotherapy centers.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Andreo P, Burns DT, Hohlfeld K, et al. Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy. IAEA Technical Report Series No.398. 2001
  2. Almond PP, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Rogers DWO. AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electrons beams. Med Phys 1999;26:1847-1870 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598691
  3. Huq MS, Rogers DWO. Advances in the determination of absorbed dose to water in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams using ionization chambers. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:R49-R104 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/4/R01
  4. Plamans H, Nafaa L, Jans JD, et al. Absorbed dose to water based dosimetry versus air kerma based dosimetry for high-photon beams: an experimental study. Phys Med Biol 2002;47:421-440 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/47/3/305
  5. PTW 2000. Long-term stability of the PTW Farmer type ionization chambers. PTW Technical Note D165.200.0/2
  6. IAEA 1999. IAEA/WHO network of secondary standard dosimetry laboratories. IAEA newsletter ISSN 1011.2669
  7. Cho SH, Lowenstein JR, Balter PA, Wells NH, Hanson WF. Comparison between TG-51 and TG-21: calibriaton of photon and electron beams in water using cylindrical chambers. J Applied Clinical Med Phy 2001;1:108-115
  8. Ding GX, Cygler JE, Kwok CB. Clinical reference dosimetry; comparison between AAPM TG-21 and TG-51 protocols. Med Phys 2000;21:1217-1225
  9. Huq MS, Song HJ, Andreo P, Houser CJ. Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy electron beams; comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols. Med Phys 2001;28:2077-2087 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1405841
  10. Andreo P, Huq MS, Westermark M, et al. Protocols for the dosimetry of high- energy photon and electron beams; a comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and previous international codes of practice. Phys Med Biol 2002;47:3033-3053 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/47/17/301
  11. Buckley LA, Rogers DWO. Wall correction factors Pwall for thimble ionization chambers. Med Phys 2006;33:455-464 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2161403