1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
oa
Ionization chamber gradient effects in nonstandard beam configurations
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/10.1118/1.3213518
1.
1.HPA, “Code of practice for x-ray measurements,” Phys. Vib. 33(55), 5559 (1960).
2.
2.HPA, “A code of practice for the dosimetry of x-ray and caesium-137 and cobalt-60 gamma-ray beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 9(4), 457463 (1964).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/9/4/302
3.
3.AAPM (SCRAD), “Protocol for the dosimetry of high energy electrons,” Phys. Med. Biol. 11(4), 505520 (1966).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/11/4/301
4.
4.HPA, “A code of practice for the dosimetry of x-ray and caesium-137 and cobalt-60 gamma-ray beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 14(1), 18 (1969).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/14/1/001
5.
5.HPA, “A practical guide to electron dosimetry ,” HPA Report Series No. 4, 1971.
6.
6.AAPM (SCRAD), “Protocol for the dosimetry of x- and gamma beams with maximum energies between 0.6 and ,” Phys. Med. Biol. 16(3), 379396 (1971).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/16/3/301
7.
7.NACP, “Procedures in radiation therapy dosimetry with electrons and roentgen and gamma rays with maximum photon energies between 1 and ,” Acta Radiol. Ther. Phys. Biol. 2(6), 603624 (1972).
8.
8.HPA, “Practical guide to electron dosimetry below for radiotherapy purposes,” HPA Report Series No. 13, 1975.
9.
9.AAPM, “Code of practice for x-ray therapy linear accelerators,” Med. Phys. 2(10), 110121 (1975).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.594133
10.
10.NACP, “Procedures in external radiation therapy dosimetry with electron and photon beams with maximum energies between 1 and ,” Acta Radiol. Oncol. 19, 5877 (1980).
11.
11.AAPM Task Group 21 Radiation Therapy Committee, “A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high-energy photon and electron beams,” Med. Phys. 10(6), 741771 (1983).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.595446
12.
12.International Atomic Energy Agency, “Absorbed dose determination in photon and electron beams: An international code of practice,” IAEA Report No. TRS-277, 1987.
13.
13.P. R. Almond, P. J. Biggs, B. M. Coursey, W. F. Hanson, M. S. Huq, R. Nath, and D. W. O. Rogers, “AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams,” Med. Phys. 26(9), 18471869 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598691
14.
14.International Atomic Energy Agency, “Absorbed dose determination in external beam Radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to Water,” IAEA Report No. TRS-398, 2001.
15.
15.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, “Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon Beam Therapy,” ICRU Report No. 50, 1993.
16.
16.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, “Radiation Quantities and Units,” ICRU Report No. 33, 1980.
17.
17.I. Kawrakow, “On the effective point of measurement in megavoltage photon beams,” Med. Phys. 33(6), 18291839 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2201147
18.
18.M. R. McEwen, I. Kawrakow, and C. K. Ross, “The effective point of measurement of ionization chambers and the build-up anomaly in MV x-ray beams,” Med. Phys. 35(3), 950958 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2839329
19.
19.H. Bouchard and J. Seuntjens, “Ionization chamber-based reference dosimetry of intensity modulated radiation beams,” Med. Phys. 31(9), 24545465 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1781333
20.
20.R. Capote, F. Sánchez-Doblado, A. Leal, J. I. Lagares, R. Arráns, and G. H. Hartmann, “An EGSnrc Monte Carlo study of the microionization chamber for reference dosimetry of narrow irregular IMRT beamlets,” Med. Phys. 31(9), 24162422 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1767691
21.
21.F. Sanchez-Doblado, P. Andreo, R. Capote, A. Leal, M. Perucha, R. Arrans, L. Nunez, E. Mainegra, J. I. Lagares, and E. Carrasco, “Ionization chamber dosimetry of small photon fields: A Monte Carlo study on stopping-power ratios for radiosurgery and IMRT beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 48(14), 20812099 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/14/304
22.
22.R. Alfonso, P. Andreo, R. Capote, M. Saiful Huq, W. Kilby, P. Kjäll, T. R. Mackie, H. Palmans, K. Rosser, J. Seuntjens, W. Ullrich, and S. Vatnitsky, “A new formalism for reference dosimetry of small and nonstandard fields,” Med. Phys. 35(11), 51795186 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3005481
23.
23.L. A. Buckley and D. W. O. Rogers, “Wall correction factors, , for thimble ionization chambers,” Med. Phys. 33(2), 455464 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2161403
24.
24.J. Wulff, J. T. Heverhagen, and K. Zink, “Monte-Carlo-based perturbation and beam quality correction factors for thimble ionization chambers in high-energy photon beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 53(11), 28232836 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/11/005
25.
25.F. Crop, N. Reynaert, G. Pittomvils, L. Paelinck, C. De Wagter, L. Vakaet, and H. Thierens, “The influence of small field sizes, penumbra, spot size and measurement depth on perturbation factors for microionization chambers,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54(9), 29512969 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/024
26.
26.A. E. Nahum, “Water/air mass stopping power ratios for megavoltage photon and electron beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 23(1), 2438 (1978).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/23/1/002
27.
27.I. Kawrakow, “Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version,” Med. Phys. 27(3), 485498 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.598917
28.
28.J. Wulff, K. Zink, and I. Kawrakow, “Efficiency improvements for ion chamber calculations in high energy photon beams,” Med. Phys. 35(4), 13281336 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2874554
29.
29.I. Kawrakow, “egspp: The EGSnrc C++ class library,” NRCC Report No. PIRS-899, 2005.
30.
30.D. W. O. Rogers, B. A. Faddegon, G. X. Ding, C.-M. Ma, J. We, and T. R. Mackie, “BEAM: A Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units,” Med. Phys. 22, 503524 (1995).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.597552
31.
31.D. W. O. Rogers, B. Walters, and I. Kawrakow, “BEAMnrc users manual, ionizing radiation standards,” National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, NRC Report No. PIRS-509, 2006.
32.
32.U. Fano, “Note on the Bragg-Gray cavity principle for measuring energy dissipation,” Radiat. Res. 1, 237240 (1954).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3570368
33.
33.L. Tantot and J. Seuntjens, “Modelling ionization chamber response to nonstandard beam configurations,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 102, 17 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/102/1/012023
34.
34.K. A. Paskalev, J. P. Seuntjens, H. J. Patrocinio, and E. B. Podgorsak, “Physical aspects of dynamic stereotactic radiosurgery with very small photon beams (1.5 and in diameter),” Med. Phys. 30, 111118 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1536290
35.
35.F. Sánchez-Doblado, R. Capote, A. Leal, J. V. Roselló, J. I. Lagares, R. Arráns, and G. H. Hartmann, “Microionization chamber for reference dosimetry in IMRT verification: Clinical implications on OAR dosimetric errors,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50(5), 959970 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/5/018
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/10.1118/1.3213518
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/10.1118/1.3213518
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/10.1118/1.3213518
2009-09-15
2014-11-23

Abstract

Purpose:

For the purpose of nonstandard beam reference dosimetry, the current concept of reporting absorbed dose at a point in water located at a representative position in the chamber volume is investigated in detail. As new nonstandard beam reference dosimetry protocols are under development, an evaluation of the role played by the definition of point of measurement could lead to conceptual improvements prior to establishing measurement procedures.

Methods:

The present study uses the current definition of reporting absorbed dose to calculate ionization chamber perturbation factors for two cylindrical chamber models (Exradin A12 and A14) using the Monte Carlo method. The EGSnrc based user-code EGS̱chamber is used to calculate chamber dose responses of 14 IMRT beams chosen to cause considerable dose gradients over the chamber volume as previously used byBouchard and Seuntjens [“Ionization chamber-based reference dosimetry of intensity modulated radiation beams,” Med. Phys.31(9), 2454–5465 (2004)].

Results:

The study shows conclusively the relative importance of each physical effect involved in the nonstandard beam correction factors of 14 IMRT beams. Of all correction factors involved in the dosimetry of the beams studied, the gradient perturbation correction factor has the highest magnitude, on average, 11% higher compared to reference conditions for the Exradin A12 chamber and about 5% higher for the Extradin A14 chamber. Other perturbation correction factors (i.e.,, , and ) are, on average, less than 0.8% different from reference conditions for the chambers and beams studied. The current approach of reporting measured absorbed dose at a point in water coinciding with the location of the centroid of the chamber is the main factor responsible for large correction factors in nonstandard beam deliveries (e.g., intensity modulated radiation therapy) reported in literature.

Conclusions:

To reduce or eliminate the magnitude of perturbation correction factors in nonstandard beam reference dosimetry, two possible ways to report absorbed dose are suggested: (1) Reporting average dose to the sensitive volume of the chamber filled with water, combined with removing the reference field implicit gradient effect when measuring output factors, and (2) reporting average dose to the chamber itself during output factor verifications. The first option could be adopted if clinical beam correction factors are negligible. The second option could simplify quality assurance procedures when correction factors are not negligible and have to be calculated using Monte Carlo simulations.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/1.3213518.html;jsessionid=2mbyfioepabxt.x-aip-live-03?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/10.1118/1.3213518&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Ionization chamber gradient effects in nonstandard beam configurations
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/36/10/10.1118/1.3213518
10.1118/1.3213518
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM