• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.11-22
• /
• 1998

The absolute absorbed dose can be determined according to the measurement conditions ; measurement material, detector, energy and calibration protocols. The purpose of this study is to compare the absolute absorbed dose due to the differences of measurement condition and calibration protocols for photon beams. Dosimetric measurements were performed with a farmer type PTW and NEL ionization chambers in water, solid water, and polystyrene phantoms using 6MV photon beams from Siemens linear accelerator. Measurements were made along the central axis of $10{\times}10cm$ field size for constant target to surface distance of 100cm for water, solid water and polystyrene phantom. Theoretical absorbed dose intercomparisons between TG21 and IAEA protocol were performed for various measurement combinations on phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG2l and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within $1\%\;while\;the\;average\;value\;of\;IAEA\;protocol\;was\;0.5\%$ smaller than TG2l protocol. For the purpose of comparison, all the relative absorbed dose were nomalized to NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer and water phantom, The average differences are within $1\%,\;but\;individual\;discrepancies\;are\;in\;the\;range\;of\;-2.5\%\;to\;1.2\%$ depending upon the choice of measurement combination. The largest discrepancy of $-25\%$ was observed when NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer is used in solid water phantom. The main cause for this discrepancy is due to the use of same parameters of stopping power, absorption coefficient, etc. as used in water phantom. It should be mentioned that the solid water phantom is not recommended for absolute dose calibration as the alternative of water, since absorbed dose show some dependency on phantom material other than water. In conclusion, the trend of variation was not much dependent on calibration protocol. However, It shows that absorbed dose could be affected by phantom material other than water.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.137-143
• /
• 2013

Purpose: We are to find out the difference of calculated dose of treatment planning system (TPS) and measured dose in case of inhomogeneous organ structure. Materials and Methods: Inhomogeneous phantom is made with solid water phantom and cork plate. CT image of inhomogeneous phantom is acquired. Treatment plan is made with TPS (Pinnacle3 9.2. Royal Philips Electronics, Netherlands) and calculated dose of point of interest is acquired. Treatment plan was delivered in the inhomogeneous phantom by ARTISTE (Siemens AG, Germany) measured dose of each point of interest is obtained with Gafchromic EBT2 film (International Specialty Products, US) in the gap between solid water phantom or cork plate. To simulate lung cancer radiation treatment, artificial tumor target of paraffin is inserted in the cork volume of inhomogeneous phantom. Calculated dose and measured dose are acquired as above. Results: In case of inhomogeneous phantom experiment, dose difference of calculated dose and measured dose is about -8.5% at solid water phantom-cork gap and about -7% lower in measured dose at cork-solid water phantom gap. In case of inhomogeneous phantom inserted paraffin target experiment, dose difference is about 5% lower in measured dose at cork-paraffin gap. There is no significant difference at same material gap in both experiments. Conclusion: Radiation dose at the gap between two organs with different electron density is significantly lower than calculated dose with TPS. Therefore, we must be aware of dose calculation error in TPS and great care is suggested in case of radiation treatment planning on inhomogeneous organ structure.

• 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.

• 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.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.55 no.8
• /
• pp.2935-2940
• /
• 2023

A polystyrene phantom was developed following the guidance of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) for gamma knife (GK) quality assurance. Its performance was assessed by measuring the absorbed dose rate to water and dose distributions. The phantom was made of polystyrene, which has an electron density (1.0156) similar to that of water. The phantom included one outer phantom and four inner phantoms. Two inner phantoms held PTW T31010 and Exradin A16 ion chambers. One inner phantom held a film in the XY plane of the Leksell coordinate system, and another inner phantom held a film in the YZ or ZX planes. The absorbed dose rate to water and beam profiles of the machine-specific reference (msr) field, namely, the 16 mm collimator field of a GK Perfexion^TM or Icon^TM, were measured at seven GK sites. The measured results were compared to those of an IAEA-recommended solid water (SW) phantom. The radius of the polystyrene phantom was determined to be 7.88 cm by converting the electron density of the plastic, considering a water depth of 8 g/cm². The absorbed dose rates to water measured in both phantoms differed from the treatment planning program by less than 1.1%. Before msr correction, the PTW T31010 dose rates (PTW Freiberg GmbH, New York, NY, USA) in the polystyrene phantom were 0.70 (0.29)% higher on average than those in the SW phantom. The Exradin A16 (Standard Imaging, Middleton, WI, USA) dose rates were 0.76 (0.32)% higher in the polystyrene phantom. After msr correction factors were applied, there were no statistically significant differences in the A16 dose rates measured in the two phantoms; however, the T31010 dose rates were 0.72 (0.29)% higher in the polystyrene phantom. When the full widths at half maximum and penumbras of the msr field were compared, no significant differences between the two phantoms were observed, except for the penumbra in the Y-axis. However, the difference in the penumbra was smaller than variations among different sites. A polystyrene phantom developed for gamma knife dosimetry showed dosimetric performance comparable to that of a commercial SW phantom. In addition to its cost effectiveness, the polystyrene phantom removes air space around the detector. Additional simulations of the msr correction factors of the polystyrene phantom should be performed.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.87-102
• /
• 1997

The absolute absorbed dose can be determined according to the measurement conditions; measurement material, detector, energy and calibration protocols. The purpose of this study is to compare the absolute absorbed dose due to the differences of measurement condition and calibration protocols for photon beams. Dosimetric measurements were performed with a farmer type PTW and NEL ionization chambers in water, solid water, and polystyrene phantoms using 6MV photon beams from Siemens linear accelerator. Measurements were made along the central axis of 10cm $\times$ 10cm field size for constant target to surface distance of 100cm for water, solid water and polystyrene phantom. Theoretical absorbed dose intercomparisons between TG21 and IAEA protocol were performed for various measurement combinations of phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG21 and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within 1％ while the average value of IAEA protocol was 0.5％ smaller than TG21 protocol. For the purpose of comparison, all the relative absorbed dose were nomalized to NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer and water phantom, The average differences are within 1％, but individual discrepancies are in the range of - 2.5％ to 1.2％ depending upon the choice of measurement combination. The largest discrepancy of - 2.5％ was observed when NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer is used in solid water phantom. The main cause for this discrepancy is due to the use of same parameters of stopping power, absorption coeficient, etc. as used in water phantom. It should be mentioned that the solid water phantom is not recommended for absolute dose calibration as the alternative of water, since absorbed dose show some dependency on phantom material other than water. In conclusion, the trend of variation was not much dependent on calibration protocol. However, it shows that absorbed dose could be affected by phantom material other than water.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.10-15
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the diverse characteristics of a novel commercial bolus, CLEANBOLUS-WHITE (CBW), to ascertain its suitability for clinical application. Methods: The evaluation of CBW encompassed both physical and biological assessments. Physical parameters such as mass density and shore hardness were measured alongside analyses of element composition. Biological evaluations included assessments for skin irritation and cytotoxicity. Dosimetric properties were examined by calculating surface dose and beam quality using a treatment planning system (TPS). Additionally, doses were measured at maximum and reference depths, and the results were compared with those obtained using a solid water phantom. The effect of air gap on dose measurement was also investigated by comparing measured doses on the RANDO phantom, under the bolus, with doses calculated from the TPS. Results: Biological evaluation confirmed that CBW is non-cytotoxic, nonirritant, and non-sensitizing. The bolus exhibited a mass density of 1.02 g/cm³ and 14 shore 00. Dosimetric evaluations revealed that using the 0.5 cm CBW resulted in less than a 1% difference compared to using the solid water phantom. Furthermore, beam quality calculations in the TPS indicated increased surface dose with the bolus. The air gap effect on dose measurement was deemed negligible, with a difference of approximately 1% between calculated and measured doses, aligning with measurement uncertainty. Conclusions: CBW demonstrates outstanding properties for clinical utilization. The dosimetric evaluation underscores a strong agreement between calculated and measured doses, validating its reliability in both planning and clinical settings.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.112-119
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The advantages of ocular proton therapy are that it spares the optic nerve and delivers the minimal dose to normal surrounding tissues. In this study, it developed a solid eye phantom that enabled us to perform quality assurance (QA) to verify the dose and beam range for passive single scattering proton therapy using a single phantom. For this purpose, a new solid eye phantom with a polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) wedge was developed using film dosimetry and an ionization chamber. Methods: The typical beam shape used for eye treatment is approximately 3 cm in diameter and the beam range is below 5 cm. Since proton therapy has a problem with beam range uncertainty due to differences in the stopping power of normal tissue, bone, air, etc, the beam range should be confirmed before treatment. A film can be placed on the slope of the phantom to evaluate the Spread-out Bragg Peak based on the water equivalent thickness value of PMMA on the film. In addition, an ionization chamber (Pin-point, PTW 31014) can be inserted into a hole in the phantom to measure the absolute dose. Results: The eye phantom was used for independent patient-specific QA. The differences in the output and beam range between the measurement and the planned treatment were less than 1.5% and 0.1 cm, respectively. Conclusions: An eye phantom was developed and the performance was successfully validated. The phantom can be employed to verify the output and beam range for ocular proton therapy.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.83-87
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study is to get the correction factor to correct the measured values of the absolute absorbed dose proportional to the water equivalent depth. The measurement conditions in white polystyrene and water phantoms for 10MV X-ray beam are that the distance of source to center of ionization chamber is fixed at SAD 100 cm, the field sizes are $10{\times}10\;cm^2$, $20{\times}20\;cm^2$ and the depths are 2.3 cm, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm, respectively. The mean value of ionization was obtained by three times measurements in each field size and depths after delivering 100 MU from linear accelerator with output of 400 MU per min to the two phantoms. The correction factor and the percentage deviation in TPR were obtained below 0.97% and 0.53%, respectively. Therefore, we can get high accuracy by using the correction factor and the percentage deviation in TPR in measuring the absolute absorbed dose with the solid water equivalent phantom.

• 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.