• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2006.08a
• /
• pp.70-70
• /
• 2006

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.249-258
• /
• 2003

A few years ago, a proposal was made to change the dosimetry from the air kerma-based reference dosimetry to the absorbed dose-based reference dosimetry for all radiotherapy beams of ionizing radiation to improve the accuracy of dosimetry. Here, we present a dosimetry study in which the two most widespread absorbed dose­based protocols (IAEA TRS­398 and AAPM TG­51) were compared with an air kerma­based protocol (IAEA TRS-277) by measuring the absorbed dose in the same reference depth. Measurements were performed in three clinical electron beam energies using a PTW 30002 cylindrical chamber, and Markus and Roos plane­parallel chambers. $^{60}$ Co calibration factors were obtained from the KFDA. The absorbed dose differences between the air kerma­based and absorbed dose­based protocols were within 2.0% for all chambers in all beams. The results thus show that the obtained absolute dose values will be not significantly altered by changing from the air kerma­based dosimetry to the absorbed dose­based dosimetry. It was also shown that absorbed dose values between the absorbed dose­based protocols agreed by deviations of less than 0.5% for a cylindrical chamber and less than 0.7% for plane­parallel chambers using cross­calibration factors. Although the use of a cylindrical chamber and plane­parallel chambers resulted in a difference of less than 2% for all situations investigated here, to reduce errors, the plane­parallel chambers are recommended for electron energies in which the use of cylindrical chamber is not permitted in each protocol.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.317-323
• /
• 2009

The standard dosimetry systems based on an absorbed dose to water recommend to use a planeparallel chamber for the calibration of such a low-megavoltage electron beam as a nominal energy of 6 MeV. For this energy ranges of an electron beam a cylindrical chamber should not be used for the routinely regular beam calibration, but the feasibility of the temporary use of a cylindrical chamber was studied to give temporary solutions for special situations users meet. The PTW30013 chambers and the electron beam quality of $R_{50}=2.25\;g/cm^2$ were selected for this study. 10 PTW30013 chambers, a cylindrical type of chamber, were calibrated in KFDA, the secondary standards dosimetry laboratories, and given the absorbed dose-to-water calibration factors, respectively. A "temporary" $k_{Q,Q_0}$ for each chamber were calculated using the absorbed dose determined by a cross-calibrated planeparallel chamber, with the result of an average 0.9352 for 10 chambers. This value for PTW30013 chamber was used to determine an absorbed dose to water at the reference depth. The absorbed doses determined by PTW30013 chambers were in an agreement within 2% with that by ROOS chamber. In a certain situation where a cylindrical chamber be used instead of a planeparellel chamber, the value of 0.9352 might be useful to determine an absorbed dose to water in the same beam quality of electron beam as this study.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 1987

Central axis percentage depth-doses, P(%), were measured at the points from the 2.5cm depth of reference point to 20 cm depth with 2.5 cm interval. Distance from the X-ray target to the water phantom($30{\times}30{\times}30cm^3$) surface was 1 m, and at this point three different beam sizes of $5cm{\phi},\;10cm{\phi},\;and\;15cm{\phi}$ were used. While the X-ray tube voltage varied from 150 to 250 kV, the tube current remained constant at 5 mA. Absorbed dose rate in water, $\dot{D}_w$, was determined using the air kerma calibration factor, $N_k$, which was derived from the exposure calibration factor, $N_x$, of the NE 2571 ion chamber. The reference exposure rate, $\dot{X}_c$, was measured using the Exradin A-2 ion chamber calibrated at ETL, Japan. The half value layers of the X-rays determined to meet ETL calibration qualities. The absorbed dose rates determined at the calibration point were compared to the values obtained from Burlin's general cavity theory, and the percentage depth-dose values determined from $N_k$ showed a good agreement with the values of the published depth dose data(BJR Suppl. 17).

• 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.22 no.2
• /
• pp.92-98
• /
• 2011

This study is to keep the accuracy and stability of the output dose evaluations for linear accelerator photon beams by using the air ionization chambers (TM31010, 0.125 cc, PTW) through the Task Group 51 protocol. The absorbed dose to water calibration factor $N_{dw}{^{Co-60}}$ was delivered from the air kerma calibration factor $N_k$ which was provided from manufacture through SSDL calibration for determination of output factor. The ionization chamber of TM31010 series was reviewed the calibration factor and other parameters for reduce the uncertainty within ${\pm}2%$ discrepancy and we found the supplied $N_{dw}{^{Co-60}}$ which was derived from Nk has shown a -2.8% uncertainty compare to that of PSDL. The authors provided the program to perform the output dosimetry with TG-51 protocol as it is composed same screen of TG-51 worksheets. The evaluated dose by determination of output factor delivered to postal TLD block for comparison the output dose to that of MDACC (RPC) in postal monitoring program. The results have shown the $1.001{\pm}0.013$ for 6 MV and $0.997{\pm}0.012$ discrepancy for 15 MV X rays for 5 years followed. This study shows the evaluated outputs for linear accelerate photon beams are very close to that of international output monitor with small discrepancy of ${\pm}1.3%$ with high reliability and showing the gradually stability after 2010.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.255-259
• /
• 2002

To reduce the uncertainty in the calibration of radiation beams, absorbed dose to water for high energy electrons is recommended as the standards and reference absorbed dose by AAPM Report no.51 and IAEA Technical Reports no.398. In these recommendations, water is, defined as the reference medium, however, the water substitute solid phantoms are discouraged. Nevertheless, when accurate chamber positioning in water is not possible, or when no waterproof chamber is available, their use is permitted at beam qualities R$\_$50/ < 4 g/cm$^2$ (E$\_$0/ < 10 MeV). For the electron dosimetry using solid phantom, a depth-scaling factor is used for the conversion of depth in solid phantoms to depth in water, and a fluence-scaling factor is used for the conversion of ionization chamber reading in plastic phantom to reading in water. In this work, the properties, especially depth-scaling factors c$\_$p1/ and fluence-scaling factors h$\_$pl/ of several commercially available water substitute solid phantoms were determined, and the electron dosimetry using these scaling method was evaluated. As a result, it is obviously that dose-distribution in solid phantom can be converted to appropriate dose-distribution in water by means of IAEA depth-scaling.

• 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.21 no.1
• /
• pp.120-125
• /
• 2010

For the measurements of an absorbed dose using the standard dosimetry based on an absorbed dose to water the variety of factors, whether big, small, or tiny, may influence the accuracy of dosimetry. The beam quality correction factor ${\kappa}_{Q,Q_0}$ of an ionization chamber might also be one of them. The cylindrical type of ionization chamber, the PTW30013 chamber, was chosen for this work and 9 chambers of the same type were collected from several institutes where the chamber types are used for the reference dosimetry. They were calibrated from the domestic Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory with the same electrometer and cable. These calibrated chambers were used to measure absorbed doses to water in the reference condition for the photon beam of 6 MV and 10 MV and the electron beam of 12 MeV from Siemens ONCOR. The biggest difference among chambers amounts to 2.4% for the 6 MV photon beam, 0.8% for the 10 MV photon beam, and 2.4% for the 12 MeV electron beam. The big deviation in the photon of 6 MV demonstrates that if there had been no problems with the process of measurements application of the same ${\kappa}_{Q,Q_0}$ to the chambers used in this study might have influenced the deviation in the photon 6 MV and that how important an external audit is.