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
On charged particle equilibrium violation in external photon fields
Rent:
Rent this article for
Access full text Article
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/10.1118/1.3684952
1.
1. R. Alfonso, P. Andreo, R. Capote, S. M. Huq, W. Kilby, P. Kjll, 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
2.
2. 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
3.
3. P. Andreo, D. T. Burns, K. Hohfield, M. S. Huq, T. Kanai, and F. Laitano V. Smyth ans S. Vynckier, “Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water,” Technical Report No. TRS-398 (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 2001).
4.
4. H Bouchard, J. P. Seuntjens, J. Carrier, and I. Kawrakow, “Ionization chamber gradient effects in nonstandard beams,” Med. Phys. 36(10), 46544663 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3213518
5.
5. U. Fano, “Note on the Bragg-gray cavity principle for measuring energy dissipation,” Radiat. Res. 1(3), 237240 (1954).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3570368
6.
6. L. V. Spencer, “Some comments on fano’s theorem,” Radiat. Res. 63(1), 191199 (1975).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3574319
7.
7. H. Palmans, “Small and composite field dosimetry: The problems and recent progress,” Standards, Applications and Quality Assurance in Medical Radiation Dosimetry (IDOS) 1, 161180 (2011).
8.
8. B. E. Bjärngard and K. R. Kase, “Replacement correction factors for photon and electron dose measurements,” Med. Phys. 12(6), 785787 (1985).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.595665
9.
9. J. Tervo, “On coupled Boltzmann transport equation related to radiation therapy,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 335, 819840 (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.01.092
10.
10. M. J. Berger, “Monte Carlo calculation of the penetration and diffusion of fast charged particles,” Methods Comput. Phys. 1, 135215 (1963).
11.
11. H. Bouchard, “A theoretical re-examination of Spencer-Attix cavity theory,” Phys. Med. Biol. (accepted).
12.
12. E. Poon, J. Seuntjens, and F. Verhaegen, “Consistency test of the electron transport algorithm in the GEANT4 Monte Carlo code,” Phys. Med. Biol. 50(4), 681694 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/4/008
13.
13. L. V. Spencer and F. H. Attix, “A theory of cavity ionization,” Radiat. Res. 3(3), 239254 (1955).
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3570326
14.
14. D. T. Burns, “A new approach to the determination of air kerma using primary-standard cavity ionization chambers,” Phys. Med. Biol. 51, 929942 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/4/012
15.
15. F. Sànchez-Doblado, R. Capote, J. V. Roselló, A. Leal, J. I. Lagares, R. Arráns, and G. H. Hartmanne, “Micro ionization chamber dosimetry in IMRT verification: Clinical implications of dosimetric errors in the PTV,” Radiother. Oncol. 75(3), 342348 (2005).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2005.04.011
16.
16. C. J. Bailat, T. Buchillier, M. Pachoud, R. Moeckli, and F. O. Bochud, “An absolute dose determination of helical tomotherapy accelerator, TomoTherapy High-Art II, Med. Phys. 36(9), 38913896 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3176951
17.
17. N. Perichon, T. Garcia, P. Franois, V. Loureno, C. Lesven, and J.-M. Bordy, “Calibration of helical tomotherapy machine using EPR/alanine dosimetry,” Med. Phys. 38(3), 11681177 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3553407
18.
18. E. Chung, H. Bouchard, and J. Seuntjens, “Investigation of three radiation detectors for accurate measurement of absorbed dose in nonstandard fields,” Med. Phys. 37(6), 24042413 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3392247
19.
19. L. L. Wang and D. W. O. Rogers, “The replacement correction factors for cylindrical chambers in high-energy photon beams,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, 16091620 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/54/6/014
20.
20. F. Tessier and I. Kawrakow, “Effective point of measurement of thimble ion chambers in megavoltage photon beams,” Med. Phys. 37(1), 96107 (2010).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3266750
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/10.1118/1.3684952
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/10.1118/1.3684952
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/10.1118/1.3684952
2012-02-27
2014-12-18

Abstract

Purpose:

In a recent paper by Bouchardet al. [Med. Phys. 36(10), 4654–4663 (2009)], a theoretical model of quality correction factors for idealistic so-called plan-class specific reference (PCSR) fields was proposed. The reasoning was founded on the definition of PCSR fields made earlier by Alfonso et al. [Med. Phys. 35(11), 5179–5186 (2008)], requiring the beam to achieve charged particle equilibrium (CPE), in a time-averaged sense, in the reference medium. The relation obtained by Bouchard et al. was derived using Fano’s theorem (1954) which states that if CPE is established in a given medium, the dose is independent of point-to-point density variations. A potential misconception on the achievability of the condition required by Fano (1954) might be responsible for false practical conclusions, both in the definition of PCSR fields as well as the theoretical model of quality correction factor.

Methods:

In this paper, the practical achievability of CPE in external beams is treated in detail. The fact that this condition is not achievable in single or composite deliveries is illustrated by an intuitive method and is also formally demonstrated.

Conclusions:

Fano’s theorem is not applicable in external beam radiation dosimetry without (virtually) removing attenuation effects, and therefore, the relation conditionally defined by Bouchardet al. (2009) cannot be valid in practice. A definition of PCSR fields in the recent formalism for nonstandard beams proposed by Alfonso et al. (2008) should be modified, revising the criterion of CPE condition. The authors propose reconsidering the terminology used to describe standard and nonstandard beams. The authors argue that quality correction factors of intensity modulated radiation therapy PCSR fields (i.e., ) could be unity under ideal conditions, but it is concluded that further investigation is necessary to confirm that hypothesis.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/1.3684952.html;jsessionid=10mop1ykrntud.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/10.1118/1.3684952&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: On charged particle equilibrium violation in external photon fields
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/39/3/10.1118/1.3684952
10.1118/1.3684952
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM