• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.89-95
• /
• 2008

The quality correction factor for used beam and qualities is strongly required for clinical dosimetry by TRS-398 protocol of IAEA. In this study the quality correction factors for a commercial plane-parallel ionization chamber in high energy electron beams were calculated by Monte Carlo code(DOSRZnrc/EGSnrc). In comparison of quality correction factor, the difference between this study and TRS-398 were within 1% in 5-20 MeV. In case of 4MeV the difference was 1.9%. As an independent method of determination of quality correction factor this study can be applied to evaluate values in the protocol or calculate the factor for a new chamber.

• Korean Journal of Digital Imaging in Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.51-58
• /
• 2010

Ionization chambers often exhibit a stem effect, caused by interactions of radiation with air near the chamber end, or with dielectric in the chamber stem or cable. In this study measured stem effect correction factor for length of ionization chamber from medical linear accelerator recommend to with the use of stem correction method. For a model of the Farmer-type chamber, were used to calculate the beam quality correction factor. These interactions contribute to the apparent measured exposure. Additionally, it needs to consider ionization chamber use of small volume and stem effect of cable by a large field. Linear accelerator generated photons energy and increased dose repeatedly measured by using stem correction method. Stem effect was dependence of the energy and increases with photon energy conditions improved of beam quality. In conclusion, stem effect correction factor was measured within 0.4% calculated according to the exposures stem length and also supposed to determined below 1% of another stem correction method.

• Journal of the Korean Physical Society
• /
• v.73 no.12
• /
• pp.1814-1820
• /
• 2018

With the publication of TRS-483 in late 2017 the IAEA has established an international code of practice for reference dosimetry in small and non-standard fields based on a formalism first suggested by Alfonso et al. in 2008. However, data on beam quality correction factors ($k^{f_{msr},f_{ref}}_{Q_{msr},Q_0}$) for the Leksell Gamma $Knife^{(R)}$ $Perfexion^{TM}$ is scarce and what little data is available was obtained under conditions not necessarily in accordance with the IAEA's recommendations. This study constitutes the first systematic attempt to calculate those correction factors by applying the new code of practice to Monte Carlo simulation using the GEANT4 toolkit. $k^{f_{msr},f_{ref}}_{Q_{msr},Q_0}$ values were determined for three common ionization chamber detectors and five different phantom materials, with results indicating that in most phantom materials, all chambers were well suited for reference dosimetry with the Gamma $Knife^{(R)}$. Similarities and differences between the results of this study and previous ones were also analyzed and it was found that the results obtained herein were generally in good agreement with earlier PENELOPE and EGSnrc studies.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.178-184
• /
• 2015

The Markus ionization chamber(R) is a small plane parallel ionization chamber widely used in clinical electron beam dosimetry. Plane parallel chambers were recommended for low energy electron dosimetry with the beam quality at $R_{50}<4.0g/cm^2$ (${\bar{E}}{\approx}10MeV$) according to TRS-398 protocol. However, the quality correction factors ($k_{Q,Q_0}$) of the Markus chamber was not presented in TRS-398 protocol for electron beam quality at $R_{50}<2.0g/cm^2$ (${\bar{E}}{\approx}4MeV$). In this study, the $k_{Q,Q_0}$ factors of the Markus chambers (PTW-34045) for beam qualities at $R_{50}=1.0$, 1.4, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and $5.0g/cm^2$ were determined by Monte Carlo calculations (DOSRZnrc/EGSnrc) and the dosimetric formalism of quality correction factor. The derived $k_{Q,Q_0}$ values were evaluated using the produced data based on TRS-398 and TG-51 protocols and known values for the Markus chamber.

• 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.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.47-51
• /
• 1999

We calculated the energy distribution and the percentage depth-dose at 10 cm in a $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ with a photon beam at SSD of 100 cm by using a Monte Carlo Simulation. PDD is used as a beam-quality specifier for radiotherapy beams. It is better than the commonly used values of TPR or nominal accelerating potential. The presence of electron contamination affects the measurement of PDD, but can be removed by the use of a 0.1 cm lead filter. It reduces surface dose from contaminant electrons from the accelerator by more than 90% for radiotherapy beams. The filter performs best when it is placed immediately below the head. An electron-contamination correction factor is introduced to correct for electron contamination from the filter and air. It converts PDD which includes the electron contamination with the filter in place into PDD for the photons in the filtered beam. The correction factor can be used to determine stopping-power ratio. Calculations show that the values of water-to-air slopping power ratio in the unfiltered beam are related to PDD.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.205-212
• /
• 2009

The response correction factor ( h) is a factor to convert the response of the chamber in solid phantom to the response in water. In RW3 solid phantom, the dependency of beam quality and depth for high energy X-rays are known characteristics, however the dependency of field size, SSD, and chamber type are unknown. In this work we have studied the unknown characteristics on the dependency of response correction factor. The farmer type chamber (FC65G) and small chamber (CC13) were used and two beam qualities of 6 and 15 MV were evaluated. The measured response correction factors at the depth of 5 cm and 10 cm were h = 1.015 and 1.021 for 6 MV X-rays, and h = 1.024 and 1.029 for 15 MV X-rays. In conclusion the response correction factor did not depend on the field size and SSD while depending on the beam quality and depth. In the chambers, there are small differences between the two chambers used in this study but we think additional study for more chambers should be required. The results in this study can be used for analyzing the measured values from ionization chamber dosimetry in RW3.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.49-55
• /
• 2008

This study aims to conduct the comparative analysis of the radiation dose according to before and after the calibration of the ionization chamber used for measuring radiation dose in the MDCT, as well as of $CTDI_w$ according to temperature and pressure correction factors in the CT room. A comparative analysis was conducted based on the measured MDCT (GE light speed plus 4 slice, USA) data using head and body CT dosimetric phantom, and Model 2026C electrometer (RADICAL 2026C, USA) calibrated on March 21, 2007. As a result, the $CTDI_w$ value which reflected calibration factors, as well as correction factors of temperature and pressure, was found to be the range of $0.479{\sim}3.162mGy$ in effective radiation dose than the uncorrected values. Also, under the routine abdomen routine CT image acquisition conditions used in reference hospitals, patient effective dose was measured to indicate the difference of the maximum of 0.7 mSv between before and after the application of such factors. These results imply that the calibration of the ion chamber, and the correction of temperature and pressure of the CT room are crucial in measuring and calculating patient effective dose. Thus, to measure patient radiation dose accurately, the detailed information should be made available regarding not only the temperature and pressure of the CT room, but also the humidity and recombination factor, characteristics of X-ray beam quality, exposure conditions, scan region, and so forth.

• 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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.54-62
• /
• 2020

Dose calculation algorithms play an important role in radiation therapy and are even the basis for optimizing treatment plans, an important feature in the development of complex treatment technologies such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy. We reviewed the past and current status of dose calculation algorithms used in the treatment planning system for radiation therapy. The radiation-calculating dose calculation algorithm can be broadly classified into three main groups based on the mechanisms used: (1) factor-based, (2) model-based, and (3) principle-based. Factor-based algorithms are a type of empirical dose calculation that interpolates or extrapolates the dose in some basic measurements. Model-based algorithms, represented by the pencil beam convolution, analytical anisotropic, and collapse cone convolution algorithms, use a simplified physical process by using a convolution equation that convolutes the primary photon energy fluence with a kernel. Model-based algorithms allowing side scattering when beams are transmitted to the heterogeneous media provide more precise dose calculation results than correction-based algorithms. Principle-based algorithms, represented by Monte Carlo dose calculations, simulate all real physical processes involving beam particles during transportation; therefore, dose calculations are accurate but time consuming. For approximately 70 years, through the development of dose calculation algorithms and computing technology, the accuracy of dose calculation seems close to our clinical needs. Next-generation dose calculation algorithms are expected to include biologically equivalent doses or biologically effective doses, and doctors expect to be able to use them to improve the quality of treatment in the near future.