• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.37-42
• /
• 2017

We measured the absorbed dose and the area dose using an ionization chamber type of area dose product (DAP) meter and measured the calibration factor in the X-ray examination. In the indirect dose measurement method, the detector was installed in the radiation part of the X-ray equipment, and the measured value was calculated as the dose at the exposure part. The instrument used to calculate the calibration factor was an X-ray equipment (DK-550R / F, DongKang Medical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea). The calibration method for the calibration factor was to connect the DAP meter (PD-8100, Toreck Co. Ltd., Japan) to the calibration dosimeter tube voltage of 70 kV, tube current of 500 mA, 0.158 sec. The reference dosimeter used a semiconductor (DOSIMAX plus A, Scanditronix, $Wellh{\ddot{o}}fer$, Germany). After installing the DAP meter on the front of the multi-collimator of the ionization chamber, the calibration factor of the dosimeter was obtained using the reference dosimeter for accurate dose measurement. Experimental exposure values and values from the calibration dosimeter were calculated by multiplying each calibration factor. The calibration factor was calculated as 1.045. In order to calculate the calibration coefficient according to the tube voltage in the ionization type DAP dosimeter, the absorbed dose and the area dose were calculated and the calibration factor was calculated. The corrective area dose was calculated by calculating the calibration factor of the DAP meter.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.111-121
• /
• 2017

Verification of dose distribution is an essential part of ensuring the treatment planning system's (TPS) calculated dose will achieve the desired outcome in radiation therapy. Each measurement have uncertainty associated with it. It is desirable to reduce the measurement uncertainty. A best approach is to reduce the uncertainty associated with each step of the process to keep the total uncertainty under acceptable limits. Point dose patient specific quality assurance (QA) is recommended by American Association of Medical Physicists (AAPM) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) for all the complex radiation therapy treatment techniques. Relative and absolute point dose measurement methods are used to verify the TPS computed dose. Relative and absolute point dose measurement techniques have a number of steps to measure the point dose which includes chamber cross calibration, electrometer reading, chamber calibration coefficient, beam quality correction factor, reference conditions, influences quantities, machine stability, nominal calibration factor (for relative method) and absolute dose calibration of machine. Keeping these parameters in mind, the estimated relative percentage uncertainty associated with the absolute point dose measurement is 2.1% (k=1). On the other hand, the relative percentage uncertainty associated with the relative point dose verification method is estimated to 1.0% (k=1). To compare both point dose measurement methods, 13 head and neck (H&N) IMRT patients were selected. A point dose for each patient was measured with both methods. The average percentage difference between TPS computed dose and measured absolute relative point dose was 1.4% and 1% respectively. The results of this comparative study show that while choosing the relative or absolute point dose measurement technique, both techniques can produce similar results for H&N IMRT treatment plans. There is no statistically significant difference between both point dose verification methods based upon the t-test for comparing two means.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.93-98
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to investigate the calibration of an optically stimulated luminescent nanoDot dosimeter(OSLnD) to 6 MV photon beam. Dose ranges of the calibration of linear and non-linear from the analysis of dose response of the OSLnD were decided. To evaluate the accuracy of calibration equation and the calibration, the sets of the calibration and quality control dosimeter were used to make. The calibrations were performed by the linear and the non-linear in the dose range of 0~300 cGy and 20~1300 cGy, respectively. The errors of the calibration were acquired less than 0.1% respectively from the measurement of the quality control dosimeters for the calibration of linear and the non-linear. This study provides the calibration equation of the OSLnD to the 6 MV photon beam.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.101-104
• /
• 1995

High Dose Rate Remote Afterloading system was installed at Wonkwang University Hospital in January 1994. In this report, the calibration of a Gammamed 12-i High Dose Rate Remote Afterloading system and the radiation survey around the facility after design and construct a shieding room are discussed. The radiation survey of the facility indicates that the use of ordinary concrete shielding of existing room will provide adequate shielding. Also, the methodologies for performing source calibration are presented.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.18 no.11
• /
• pp.508-515
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to analyze the errors of the built - in dose area product and the calibrated moving dose area product when using automatic exposure controller of the interventional equipment. And then, the importance of the dosimeter calibration and the necessity of the calibration guideline were investigated. The experimental method was to assemble the phantom into Thin, Normal, and Heavy Adult according to the NEMA Phantom manual and to measure the dose area with the built-in dose area product and the moving dose area product. As a result, in all thicknesses, the built-in dose area product showed higher doses than the moving dose area product, and the thicker the thickness, the larger the difference. In addition, paired t-test was performed for each item and there was a significant difference in each item between p<0.05. In conclusion, considering the intervention which is highly exposed to the radiation exposure, it is that we have to know the accurate dose when using the AEC of the equipment. And there is no calibration guide for the built-in dose area meter, thus calibration guidelines should be prepared.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.13-18
• /
• 1995

Dose distribution of HDR-RALS source represents an inverse square law as the distance. Difference of measurement value and calculation value according of brachytherapy. Therefore, in HDR-RALS dose calibration and calculation have an important effect in treatment of uterine cervical cancer and absorbed dose of interesting points. In intracavitary therapy, particula attention is paid for precise determination of the doses to be applied. In this report, we have discussed that the calibration of a HDR-RALS, differences between calculation dose use of isodose chart and measurement in rectum. Dose rate calibration of radiation sources are obtained from air kerma and Г factor with calibraed ion chamber for cobalt source. and used semiconductor detector for compared with measurement in phantom. Eighteen patients were treated with a HDR-RALS for intrcavitarty irradiation (ICR) using a cobalt-cesium source. Repoductivity of dose measurements were 0.3 -1.1％ in phantom. The means of dose distribution was -6- ＋21％ between calculation of isodose chart and measurement of recyum, and was same mean value upper 6.3％ in measurement value than calculation does.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.381-390
• /
• 2002

Purpose : To develop a dose calibration program for the IAEA TRS-277 and AAPM TG-21, based on the air kerma calibration factor (or the cavity-gas calibration factor), as well as for the IAEA TRS-398 and the AAPM TG-51, based on the absorbed dose to water calibration factor, so as to avoid the unwanted error associated with these calculation procedures. Materials and Methods : Currently, the most widely used dosimetry Protocols of high energy photon beams are the air kerma calibration factor based on the IAEA TRS-277 and the AAPM TG-21. However, this has somewhat complex formalism and limitations for the improvement of the accuracy due to uncertainties of the physical quantities. Recently, the IAEA and the AAPM published the absorbed dose to water calibration factor based, on the IAEA TRS-398 and the AAPM TG-51. The formalism and physical parameters were strictly applied to these four dose calibration programs. The tables and graphs of physical data and the information for ion chambers were numericalized for their incorporation into a database. These programs were developed user to be friendly, with the Visual $C^{++}$ language for their ease of use in a Windows environment according to the recommendation of each protocols. Results : The dose calibration programs for the high energy photon beams, developed for the four protocols, allow the input of informations about a dosimetry system, the characteristics of the beam quality, the measurement conditions and dosimetry results, to enable the minimization of any inter-user variations and errors, during the calculation procedure. Also, it was possible to compare the absorbed dose to water data of the four different protocols at a single reference points. Conclusion : Since this program expressed information in numerical and data-based forms for the physical parameter tables, graphs and of the ion chambers, the error associated with the procedures and different user could be solved. It was possible to analyze and compare the major difference for each dosimetry protocol, since the program was designed to be user friendly and to accurately calculate the correction factors and absorbed dose. It is expected that accurate dose calculations in high energy photon beams can be made by the users for selecting and performing the appropriate dosimetry protocol.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.175-183
• /
• 2003

Absorbed dose dosimetry protocols of high energy photon and electron beams, which are widely used and based on an air kerma (or exposure) calibration factors, have somewhat complex formalism and limitations for improving dosimetric accuracy due to the uncertainty of the physical parameters used. Recently, the IAEA and the AAPM published the absorbed dose to water-based dosimetry protocols(IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51). The dose calibration programs for these two protocols were developed. This program for high energy photon and electron beams was also developed for users to use in a window environment using the Visual C++ language. The formalism and physical parameters of these two protocols were strictly applied to the program. The tables and graphs of the physical data, and the information of ion chambers were numericalized for their incorporation into a database. This program can be useful in developing new dosimetry protocols in Korea.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.327-335
• /
• 2003

The commercially available neutron survey meter, the REM500, which uses a tissue equivalent proportional counter (TEPC) and the self-constructed TEPC were used to determine the microdosimetric quantities of several neutron calibration fields at Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Microdosimetric spectra, absorbed dose, dose equivalent as well as quality factor were derived and compared with several neutron fields which were produced by using the shadow objects to make neutron scattered and being used as a kind of realistic neutron calibration fields at KAERI. The response of REM500 as a function of mean energy was evaluated with these neutron fields using the counts measured and the predetermined reference value. The response of the self-made TEPC and the REM500 was compared using one of the neutron calibration filelds of a $^{252}Cf$ source. The reference quantities of scattered neutron calibration fields were determined using a Bonner Sphere (BS). The value of frequency-mean lineal energy, dose-mean lineal energy and quality factor of two $^{252}Cf$ sources (unmoderated and $D_2O$ moderated) were determined to check the differences in the reference neutron fields between KAERI and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL, USA) and the results were in good agreement within 1%. It means that there is no big difference in dosimetric quantifies of neutron calibration fields of two laboratories.