| 1. |
- Palmans, H., et al.
(author)
-
Fluence correction factors for graphite calorimetry in a low-energy clinical proton beam : I. Analytical and Monte Carlo simulations
- 2013
-
In: Physics in Medicine and Biology. - : IOP Publishing. - 0031-9155 .- 1361-6560. ; 58:10, s. 3481-3499
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The conversion of absorbed dose-to-graphite in a graphite phantom to absorbed dose-to-water in a water phantom is performed by water to graphite stopping power ratios. If, however, the charged particle fluence is not equal at equivalent depths in graphite and water, a fluence correction factor, k(fl), is required as well. This is particularly relevant to the derivation of absorbed dose-to-water, the quantity of interest in radiotherapy, from a measurement of absorbed dose-to-graphite obtained with a graphite calorimeter. In this work, fluence correction factors for the conversion from dose-to-graphite in a graphite phantom to dose-to-water in a water phantom for 60 MeV mono-energetic protons were calculated using an analytical model and five different Monte Carlo codes (Geant4, FLUKA, MCNPX, SHIELD-HIT and McPTRAN.MEDIA). In general the fluence correction factors are found to be close to unity and the analytical and Monte Carlo codes give consistent values when considering the differences in secondary particle transport. When considering only protons the fluence correction factors are unity at the surface and increase with depth by 0.5% to 1.5% depending on the code. When the fluence of all charged particles is considered, the fluence correction factor is about 0.5% lower than unity at shallow depths predominantly due to the contributions from alpha particles and increases to values above unity near the Bragg peak. Fluence correction factors directly derived from the fluence distributions differential in energy at equivalent depths in water and graphite can be described by k(fl) = 0.9964 + 0.0024 . z(w-eq) with a relative standard uncertainty of 0.2%. Fluence correction factors derived from a ratio of calculated doses at equivalent depths in water and graphite can be described by k(fl) = 0.9947 + 0.0024 . z(w-eq) with a relative standard uncertainty of 0.3%. These results are of direct relevance to graphite calorimetry in low-energy protons but given that the fluence correction factor is almost solely influenced by non-elastic nuclear interactions the results are also relevant for plastic phantoms that consist of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms as well as for soft tissues.
|
|
| 2. |
- Vatnitsky, S, et al.
(author)
-
Proton dosimetry intercomparison
- 1996
-
In: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - 0167-8140 .- 1879-0887. ; 41:2, s. 169-77
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Methods for determining absorbed dose in clinical proton beams are based on dosimetry protocols provided by the AAPM and the ECHED. Both groups recommend the use of air-filled ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma in a 60Co beam when a calorimeter or Faraday cup dosimeter is not available. The set of input data used in the AAPM and the ECHED protocols, especially proton stopping powers and w-value is different. In order to verify inter-institutional uniformity of proton beam calibration, the AAPM and the ECHED recommend periodic dosimetry intercomparisons. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goal of the intercomparison was two-fold: first, to estimate the consistency of absorbed dose delivered to patients among the participating facilities, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in 60Co-based ionization chamber calibration protocols.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen institutions participated in an international proton dosimetry intercomparison. The measurements were performed in a 15-cm square field at a depth of 10 cm in both an unmodulated beam (nominal accelerator energy of 250 MeV) and a 6-cm modulated beam (nominal accelerator energy of 155 MeV), and also in a circular field of diameter 2.6 cm at a depth of 1.14 cm in a beam with 2.4 cm modulation (nominal accelerator energy of 100 MeV).RESULTS: The results of the intercomparison have shown that using ionization chambers with 60Co calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories, and institution-specific conversion factors and dose protocols, the absorbed dose specified to the patient would fall within 3% of the mean value. A single measurement using an ionization chamber with a proton chamber factor determined with a Faraday cup calibration differed from the mean by 8%.CONCLUSION: The adoption of a single ionization chamber dosimetry protocol and uniform conversion factors will establish agreement on proton absorbed dose to approximately 1.5%, consistent with that which has been observed in high-energy photon and electron dosimetry.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
