• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.97-105
• /
• 2009

Absorbed dose to water based protocols recommended that plane-parallel chambers be calibrated against calibrated cylindrical chambers in a high energy electron beam with $R_{50}$>7 $g/cm^2$ (E${\gtrsim}$16 MeV). However, such high-energy electron beams are not available at all radiotherapy centers. In this study, we are compared the absorbed dose to water determined according to cross-calibration method in a high energy electron beam of 16 MeV and in electron beam energies of 12 MeV below the cross-calibration quality remark. Absorbed dose were performed for PTW 30013, Wellhofer FC65G Farmer type cylindrical chamber and for PTW 34001, Wellhofer PPC40 Roos type plane-parallel chamber. The cylindrical and the plane-parallel chamber to be calibrated are compared by alternately positioning each at reference depth, $Z_{ret}=0.6R_{50}-0.1$ in water phantom. The $D_W$ of plane-parallel chamber are derived using across-calibration method at high-energy electron beams of 16, 20 MeV. Then a good agreement is obtained the $D_W$ of plane-parallel chamber in 12 MeV. The agreement between 20 MeV and 12 MeV are within 0.2% for IAEA TRS-398.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.114-122
• /
• 2012

For the determination of absorbed dose to water from a linear accelerator photon beams, it needs a exposure calibration factor $N_x$ or air kerma calibration factor $N_k$ of air ionization chamber. We used the exposure calibration factor $N_x$ to find the absorbed dose calibration factors of water in a reference source through the TG-21 and TRS-277 protocol. TG-21 used for determine the absorbed dose in accuracy, but it required complex calculations including the chamber dependent factors. The authors obtained the absorbed dose calibration factor $N_{dw}{^{Co-60}}$ for reduce the complex calculations with unknown $N_{dw}$ only with $N_x$ or $N_k$ calibration factor in a TM31010 (S/N 1055, 1057) ionization chambers. The results showed the uncertainty of calculated $N_{dw}$ of IC-15 which was known the $N_x$ and $N_{dw}$ is within -0.6% in TG-21, but 1.0% in TRS-277. and TM31010 was compared the $N_{dw}$ of SSDL to that of PSDL as shown the 0.4%, -2.8% uncertainty, respectively. The authors experimented with good agreement the calculated $N_{dw}$ is reliable for cross check the discrepancy of the calibration factor with unknown that of TM31010 and IC-15 chamber.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.7-13
• /
• 2009

This work is for the preliminary study for the calibration of an $^{192}Ir$ brachytherapy source based on an absorbed dose to water standards. In order to calibrate brachytherapy sources based on absorbed dose to water standards using a clyndirical ionization chamber, the beam quality correction factor $k_{Q,Q_0}$ is needed. In this study $k_{Q,Q_0}s$ were determined by both Monte carlo simulation and semiexperimental methods because of the realistic difficulties to use primary standards to measure an absolute dose at a specified distance. The 5 different serial numbers of the PTW30013 chamber type were selected for this study. While chamber to chamber variations ran up to maximum 4.0% with the generic $k^{gen}_{Q,Q_0}$, the chamber to chamber variations were within a maximum deviation of 0.5% with the individual $k^{ind}_{Q,Q_0}$. The results show why and how important ionization chambers must be calibrated individually for the calibration of $^{192}Ir$ brachytherapy sources based on absorbed dose to water standards. We hope that in the near future users will be able to calibrate the brachytherapy sources in terms of an absorbed dose to water, the quantity of interest in the treatment, instead of an air kerma strength just as the calibration in the high energy photon and electron beam.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.85-92
• /
• 1989

Dosimerty based on electron spin resonance (ESR) analysis of radiation induced free radicals in amino acids is relevant to biological dosimetry applications. Alanine detectors are without walls and are tissue equivalent. Therefore, alanine ESR dosimetry looks promising for use in the therapy level. The dose range of the alanine/ESR dosimetry system can be extended down to 1 Gy. In water phantom the absorbed dose of electrons generated by a medical linear accelerator of different initial energies $(6\~21MeV)$ and therapeutic dose levels (1~60 Gy) was measured. Furthermore, depth dose measurements carried out with alanine dosimeters were compared with ionization chamber measurements. As the results, the measured absorbed doses for shallow depth of initial electron energies above 15 MeV were higher by$2\~5\%$ than those calculated by nominal energy $C_E$ factors. This seems to be caused by low energy scattered beams generated from the scattering foil and electron cones of beam projecting device in medical linear accelerator.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.253-258
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and analyze the relationship between the external radiation dose reconstruction which is transmitted from the patient who receives radiation treatment through electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and the internal dose derived from the Monte Carlo simulation. As a comparative analysis of the two cases, it is performed to provide a basic indicator for similar studies. The geometric information of the experiment and that of the radiation source were entered into Monte Carlo n-particle (MCNPX) which is the computer simulation tool and to derive the EPID images, a tally card in MCNPX was used for visualizing and the imaging of the dose information. We set to source to surface distance (SSD) 100 cm for internal measurement and EPID. And the water phantom was set to be 100 cm of the source to surface distance (SSD) for the internal measurement and EPID was set to 90 cm of SSD which is 10 cm below. The internal dose was collected from the water phantom by using mesh tally function in MCNPX, accumulated dose data was acquired by four-portal beam exposures. At the same time, after getting the dose which had been passed through water phantom, dose reconstruction was performed using back-projection method. In order to analyze about two cases, we compared the penetrated dose by calibration of itself with the absorbed one. We also evaluated the reconstructed dose using EPID and partially accumulated (overlapped) dose in water phantom by four-portal beam exposures. The sum dose data of two cases were calculated as each 3.4580 MeV/g (absorbed dose in water) and 3.4354 MeV/g (EPID reconstruction). The result of sum dose match from two cases shows good agreement with 0.6536% dose error.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.62-69
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study has been performed to investigate the possibility of external audit program using thermoluminescence dosimetry for electron beam in korea. The TLD system consists of LiF powder, type TLD-700 read with a PCL 3 reader. In order to determine a calibration coefficient of the TLD system, the reference dosimeters are irradiated to 2 Gy in a $^{60}CO$ beam at the KFDA The irradiation is performed under reference conditions is water phantom using the IAEA standard holder for TLD of electron beam. The energy correction factor is determined for LiF powder irradiated of dose to water 2 Gy in electron beams of 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 MeV (Varian CL 2100C). The dose is determined according to the IAEA TRS-398 and by measurement with a PTW Roos type plane-parallel chamber. The TLD for each electron energy are positioned in water at reference depth. In this study, to verify of the accuracy of dose determination by the TLD system are performed through a 'blind' TLD irradiation. The results of blind test are $2.98\%,\;3.39\%\;and\;0.01\%(1\sigma)$ at 9, 16, 20 MeV, respectively. The value generally agrees within the acceptance level of $5\%$ for electron beam. The results of this study prove the possibility of the TLD quality assurance program for electron beams. It has contributed to the improvement of clinical electron dosimetry in radiotherapy centers.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.153-156
• /
• 2004

Korea Food and Drug Administration(KFDA) has peformed the calibration of therapy level dosimeters for Co-60 radiation since 1979. The reference standard ionization chamber has been calibrated at BIPM in France. The uncertainty on the KFDA calibration coefficients is 0.9 %(k=2) for air kerma and absorbed dose to water. Since 1999 a national quality audit program for ensuring dosimetry accuracy in Korea radiotherapy centers has been performed by the KFDA. The uncertainty associated with the determination of the absorbed dose to water from the TLD readings for high energy x-ray is 1.6 %(k=1). The correction factors for energy, non-linearity dose response, and TLD holder are used in the dose determination. Agreement between the user stated dose and KFDA measured dose within ${\pm}$ 5 % is considered acceptable. KFDA TLD postal dose quality audit program was peformed for 71 beam qualities of 53 domestic radiotherapy centers in 2003. The results for quality assurance showed that 63 out of 71 beam qualifies (89 %) satisfied the acceptance limit. The second audit was carried out for the centers outside the limit and ail of them have been corrected.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.59-71
• /
• 2000

It is possible to obtain a fast CT scan during breath holding with spiral technique. But the risk of radiation is increased due to detailed and repeated scans. However, the limitation of X-ray doses is not fully specified on CT, yet. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to define the limitation of X-ray doses on CT The CT unit was somatom plus 4. Alderson Rando phantom, Solenoid water phantom, TLD, and reader were used. For determining adequate position and size of organs, the measurement of distance(${\pm}$2mm) from the midline of vertebral body was performed in 40 women(20~40 years). On the brain scan for 8:8(8mm slice thickness, 8mm/sec movement velocity of the table) and 10:10(10mm slice thickness, 10mm/sec movement velocity of the table) methods, the absorption doses of exposed area of the 10:10 were slightly higher than those of 8:8. The doses of unexposed uterus were negligible on the brain scan for both 8:8 and 10:10. On the chest scan for 8:8, 8:10(8mm slice thickness, 10mm/sec movement velocity of the table), 10:10, 10:12(10mm slice thickness, 12mm/sec movement velocity of the table) and 10:15(10mm slice thickness, 15mm/sec movement velocity of the table) methods, 8:8 method of the absorption doses of exposure area was the most highest and 10:15 method was the most lowest. The absorption doses of 8:10 method was relatively lower than those of the other methods. In conclusion, the 8:10 method is the most suitable to give a low radiation burden to patient without distorting image quality.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.50-56
• /
• 2010

Purpose: We report the results of an external audit on the absorbed dose of radiotherapy beams independently performed by third parties. For this effort, we developed a method to measure the absorbed dose to water in an easy and convenient setup of solid water phantom. Materials and Methods: In 2008, 12 radiotherapy centers voluntarily participated in the external auditing program and 47 beams of X-ray and electron were independently calibrated by the third party’s American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) task group (TG)-51 protocol. Even though the AAPM TG-51 protocol recommended the use of water, water as a phantom has a few disadvantages, especially in a busy clinic. Instead, we used solid water phantom due to its reproducibility and convenience in terms of setup and transport. Dose conversion factors between solid water and water were determined for photon and electron beams of various energies by using a scaling method and experimental measurements. Results: Most of the beams (74%) were within ${\pm}2%$ of the deviation from the third party's protocol. However, two of 20 X-ray beams and three of 27 electron beams were out of the tolerance (${\pm}3%$), including two beams with a >10% deviation. X-ray beams of higher than 6 MV had no conversion factors, while a 6 MV absorbed dose to a solid water phantom was 0.4% less than the dose to water. The electron dose conversion factors between the solid water phantom and water were determined: The higher the electron energy, the less is the conversion factor. The total uncertainty of the TG-51 protocol measurement using a solid water phantom was determined to be ${\pm}1.5%$. Conclusion: The developed method was successfully applied for the external auditing program, which could be evolved into a credential program of multi-institutional clinical trials. This dosimetry saved time for measuring doses as well as decreased the uncertainty of measurement possibly resulting from the reference setup in water.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.308-316
• /
• 2009

To achieve the accurate evaluation of given absorbed dose from output dose of linear accelerator photon beam through investigate the characteristics of LiF:Mg,Cu,P TLD powder. This experimental TL phosphor is performed with a commercial LiF:Mg,Cu,P powder (Supplied by PTW) and TL reader (LTM, France). The TLD was exposed to 6 MV X rays of linear accelerator photon beam with range 15 to 800 cGy in blind dose at two hospitals. The dose evaluation of TLD was through the experimental algorithms which were dose dependency, dose rate dependency, fading and powder weight dependency. The glow curve has shown the three peaks which are 110, 183 and 232 degrees of heating temperature and the main dosimetric peak showed highest TL response at 232 high temperature. In this experiments, the LiF:Mg,Cu,P phosphor has shown the 2.5 eV of electron trap energy with a second order. This experiments guided the dose evaluation accuracy is within 1% +2.58% of discrepancy. The TLD powder of LiF:Mg,Cu,P was analyzed to dosimetric characterists of electron captured energy and order by glow shape, and dose-TL response curve guided the accuracy within 1.0+2.58% of output dose discrepancy.