• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.577-585
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of beam delivery QA software using the MLC dynalog file, about the VMAT plan with AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Clinac iX with a built-in 120 MLC was used to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx(MFX). To establish VMAT plan, Oncentra RTP system was used target and organ structures were contoured in Im'RT phantom. For evaluation of dose distribution was evaluated by using gamma index, and the point dose was evaluated by using the CC13 ion chamber in Im'RT phantom. For the evaluation of point dose, the mean of relative error between measured and calculated value was $1.41{\pm}0.92%$(Target) and $0.89{\pm}0.86%$(OAR), the confidence limit were 3.21(96.79%, Target) and 2.58(97.42%, OAR). For the evaluation of dose distribution, in case of $Delta^{4PT}$, the average percentage of passing rate were $99.78{\pm}0.2%$(3%/3 mm), $96.86{\pm}1.76%$(2%/2 mm). In case of MFX, the average percentage of passing rate were $99.90{\pm}0.14%$(3%/3 mm), $97.98{\pm}1.97%$(2%/2 mm), the confidence limits(CL) were in case of $Delta^{4PT}$ 0.62(99.38%, 3%/3 mm), 6.6(93.4%, 2%/2 mm), in case of MFX, 0.38(99.62%, 3%/3 mm), 5.88(94.12%, 2%/2 mm). In this study, we performed VMAT QA method using dynamic MLC log file compare to binary diode array chamber. All analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119 protocol.