Cylindrical chamber dimensions and the corresponding values of Awall and Ngas/(NxAion)

Consistency of absorbed dose to water measurements using 21 ion-chamber models following the AAPM TG51 and TG21 calibration protocols

In 1999, the AAPM introduced a reference dosimetry protocol, known as TG51, based on an absorbed dose standard. This replaced the previous protocol, known as TG21, which was based on an air kerma standard. A significant body of literature has emerged discussing the improved accuracy and robustness of the absorbed dose standard, and quantifying the changes in baseline dosimetry with the introduction of the absorbed dose protocol. A significant component playing a role in the overall accuracy of beam output determination is the variability due to the use of different dosimeters. This issue, not adequately addressed in the past, is the focus of the present study. This work provides a comparison of absorbed dose determinations using 21 different makes and models of ion chambers for low- and high-energy photon and electron beams. The study included 13 models of cylindrical ion chambers and eight models of plane-parallel chambers. A high degree of precision (<0.25%) resulted from measurements with all chambers in a single setting, a sufficient number of repeat readings, and the use of high quality ion chambers as external monitors. Cylindrical chambers in photon beams show an improvement in chamber-to-chamber consistency with TG51. For electron dosimetry with plane-parallel chambers, the parameters Ngas and the product ND,w x k(ecal) were each determined in two ways, based on (i) an ADCL calibration, and (ii) a cross comparison with an ADCL-calibrated cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. Plane-parallel chamber results, therefore, are presented for both methods of chamber calibration. Our electron results with technique (i) show that plane-parallel chambers, as a group, overestimate the beam output relative to cylindrical chambers by 1%-2% with either protocol. Technique (ii), by definition, normalizes the plane-parallel results to the cylindrical results. In all cases, the maximum spread in output from the various cylindrical chambers is <2% implying a standard deviation of less than 0.5%. For plane-parallel chambers, the maximum spread is somewhat larger, up to 3%. A few chambers have been identified as outliers.

Calibration of low-energy electron beams from a mobile linear accelerator with plane-parallel chambers using both TG-51 and TG-21 protocols

A new approach to intraoperative radiation therapy led to the development of mobile linear electron accelerators that provide lower electron energy beams than the usual conventional accelerators commonly encountered in radiotherapy. Such mobile electron accelerators produce electron beams that have nominal energies of 4, 6, 9 and 12 MeV. This work compares the absorbed dose output calibrations using both the AAPM TG-51 and TG-21 dose calibration protocols for two types of ion chambers: a plane-parallel (PP) ionization chamber and a cylindrical ionization chamber. Our results indicate that the use of a 'Markus' PP chamber causes 2-3% overestimation in dose-output determination if accredited dosimetry-calibration laboratory based chamber factors (N(60Co)(D,w,) Nx) are used. However, if the ionization chamber factors are derived using a cross-comparison at a high-energy electron beam, then a good agreement is obtained (within 1%) with a calibrated cylindrical chamber over the entire energy range down to 4 MeV. Furthermore, even though the TG-51 does not recommend using cylindrical chambers at the low energies, our results show that the cylindrical chamber has a good agreement with the PP chamber not only at 6 MeV but also down to 4 MeV electron beams.

The calibration of a Scanditronix-Wellhöfer thimble chamber for photon dosimetry using the IAEA TRS 277 code of practice

This note investigates the calibration of a Scanditronix-Wellhöfer type FC65-G ionisation chamber to be used in clinical photon dosimetry. The current Adaptation by the Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) of the IAEA TRS 277 dosimetry protocol makes no provision for this type of chamber. The absorbed dose to air calibration coefficient ND was therefore calculated from the air kerma calibration coefficient NK using the formalism of the IAEA TRS 277 protocol and it is shown that the value of the correction factor kmkatt for the FC65-G chamber is identical to that of the NE 2571 chamber. ND was also determined experimentally from a cross calibration against an NE 2571 dosimetry. It was found that there is a good correspondence between the calculated and measured values. To establish to what extent the ACPSEM Adaptation can be used for the FC65-G chamber, values for the ratio of stopping powers in water and air (Sw,air)Q and the perturbation correction factor pQ were calculated using the TRS 277 protocol. From these results it is shown that over the range of beam qualities TPR20,10 = 0.59 to TPR20,10 = 0.78 the Adaptation can be used for the FC65-G chamber.

TG-51: experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG-51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where physicists have had problems. At the beginning of the year 2000, the RPC requested that institutions participating in national clinical trials provide the change in measured beam output resulting from the conversion from the TG-21 protocol to TG-51. So far, the RPC has received the requested data from approximately 150 of the approximately 1300 institutions in the RPC program. The RPC also undertook a comparison of TG-21 and TG-51 and determined the expected change in beam calibration for ion chambers in common use, and for the range of photon and electron beam energies used clinically. Analysis of these data revealed two significant outcomes: (i) a large number (approximately 1/2) of the reported calibration changes for photon and electron beams were outside the RPC's expected values, and (ii) the discrepancies in the reported versus the expected dose changes were as large as 8%. Numerous factors were determined to have contributed to these deviations. The most significant factors involved the use of plane-parallel chambers, the mixing of phantom materials and chambers between the two protocols, and the inconsistent use of depth-dose factors for transfer of dose from the measurement depth to the depth of dose maximum. In response to these observations, the RPC has identified a number of circumstances in which physicists might have difficulty with the protocol, including concerns related to electron calibration at low energies (R50<2 cm), and the use of a cylindrical chamber at 6 MeV electrons. In addition, helpful quantitative hints are presented, including the effect of the prescribed lead filter for photon energy measurements, the impact of shifting the chamber depth for photon depth-dose measurements, and the impact of updated stopping-power data used in TG-51 versus that used in TG-21, particularly for electron calibrations.

Calculated absorbed-dose ratios, TG51/TG21, for most widely used cylindrical and parallel-plate ion chambers over a range of photon and electron energies

Task Group 51 (TG51), of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), has developed a calibration protocol for high-energy photon and electron therapy beams based on absorbed dose standards. This protocol is intended to replace the air-kerma based protocol developed by an earlier AAPM task group (TG21). Conversion to the newer protocol introduces a change in the determined absorbed dose. In this work, the change in dose is expressed as the ratio of the doses (TG51/TG21) based on the two protocols. Dose is compared at the TG-51 reference depths of 10 cm for photons and d(ref) for electrons. Dose ratios are presented for a variety of ion chambers over a range of photon and electron energies. The TG51/TG21 dose ratios presented here are based on the dosimetry factors provided by the two protocols and the chamber-specific absorbed dose and exposure calibration factors (N60Co(D,w) and Nx) provided by the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL) at The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). As such, the values presented here represent the expected discrepancies between the two protocols due only to changes in the dosimetry parameters and the differences in chamber-specific dose and air-kerma standards. These values are independent of factors such as measurement uncertainties, setup errors, and inconsistencies arising from the mix of different phantoms and ion chambers for the two protocols. Therefore, these ratios may serve as a guide for institutions performing measurements for the switch from TG21-to-TG51 based calibration. Any significant deviation in the ratio obtained from measurements versus those presented here should prompt a review to identify possible errors and inconsistencies. For all cylindrical chambers included here, the TG51/TG21 dose ratios are the same within +/-0.6%, irrespective of the make and model of the chamber, for each photon and electron beam included. Photon beams show the TG51/TG21 dose ratios decreasing with energy, whereas electrons exhibit the opposite trend. The dose ratio for photons is near 1.00 at 18 mV increasing to near 1.01 at 4 mV while the dose ratio for electrons is near 1.02 at 20 MeV decreasing only 0.5% to near 1.015 at 6 MeV. For parallel-plate chambers, the situation is complicated by the two possible methods of obtaining calibration factors: through an ADCL or through a cross-comparison with a cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. For some chambers, the two methods lead to significantly different calibration factors, which in turn lead to significantly different TG51/TG21 results for the same chamber. Data show that if both N60Co(D,w) and Nx are obtained from the same source, namely an ADCL or a cross comparison, the TG51/TG21 results for parallel-plate chambers are similar to those for cylindrical chambers. However, an inconsistent set of calibration factors, i.e., using N60Co(D,w) x k(ecal) from an ADCL but Ngas from a cross comparison or vice versa, can introduce an additional uncertainty up to 2.5% in the TG51/TG21 dose ratios.

Comparison of high-energy photon and electron dosimetry for various dosimetry protocols

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 51 (TG-51) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) published a new high-energy photon and electron dosimetry protocol, in 1999 and 2000, respectively. These protocols are based on the use of an ion chamber having an absorbed-dose to water calibration factor with a 60Co beam. These are different from the predecessors, the TG-21 and IAEA TRS-277 protocols, which require a 60Co exposure or air-kerma calibration factor. The purpose of this work is to present the dose comparison between various dosimetry protocols and the AAPM TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. The absorbed-dose to water calculated according to the Japanese Association of Radiological Physics (JARP), International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Report Series No. 277 (IAEA TRS-277) and No. 398 (IAEA TRS-398) protocols is compared to that calculated using the TG-51 protocol. For various Farmer-type chambers in photon beams, TG-51 is found to predict 0.6-2.1% higher dose than JARP. Similarly, TG-51 is found to be higher by 0.7-1.7% than TRS-277. For electron beams TG-51 is higher than JARP by 1.5-3.8% and TRS-277 by 0.2-1.9%. The reasons for these differences are presented in terms of the cavity-gas calibration factor, Ngas, and a dose conversion factor, Fw, which converts the absorbed-dose to air in the chamber to the absorbed-dose to water. The ratio of cavity-gas calibration factors based on absorbed-dose to water calibration factors, N60Co(D,w), in TG-51 and cavity-gas calibration factors which are equivalent to absorbed-dose to air chamber factors, N(D,air), based on the IAEA TRS-381 protocol is 1.008 on average. However, the estimated uncertainty of the ratio between the two cavity-gas calibration factors is 0.9% (1 s.d.) and consequently, the observed difference of 0.8% is not significant. The absorbed-dose to water and exposure or air-kerma calibration factors are based on standards traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In contrast, the absorbed-dose to water determined with TRS-398 is in good agreement with TG-51 within about 0.5% for photon and electron beams.

Absorbed dose to water based dosimetry versus air kerma based dosimetry for high-energy photon beams: an experimental study

In recent years, a change has been proposed from air kerma based reference dosimetry to absorbed dose based reference dosimetry for all radiotherapy beams of ionizing radiation. In this paper, a dosimetry study is presented in which absorbed dose based dosimetry using recently developed formalisms was compared with air kerma based dosimetry using older formalisms. Three ionization chambers of each of three different types were calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water and air kerma and sent to five hospitals. There, reference dosimetry with all the chambers was performed in a total of eight high-energy clinical photon beams. The selected chamber types were the NE2571, the PTW-30004 and the Wellhöfer-FC65G (previously Wellhöfer-IC70). Having a graphite wall, they exhibit a stable volume and the presence of an aluminium electrode ensures the robustness of these chambers. The data were analysed with the most important recommendations for clinical dosimetry: IAEA TRS-398, AAPM TG-51, IAEA TRS-277, NCS report-2 (presently recommended in Belgium) and AAPM TG-21. The necessary conversion factors were taken from those protocols, or calculated using the data in the different protocols if data for a chamber type are lacking. Polarity corrections were within 0.1% for all chambers in all beams. Recombination corrections were consistent with theoretical predictions, did not vary within a chamber type and only slightly between different chamber types. The maximum chamber-to-chamber variations of the dose obtained with the different formalisms within the same chamber type were between 0.2% and 0.6% for the NE2571, between 0.2% and 0.6% for the PTW-30004 and 0.1% and 0.3% for the Wellhöfer-FC65G for the different beams. The absorbed dose results for the NE2571 and Wellhöfer-FC65G chambers were in good agreement for all beams and all formalisms. The PTW-30004 chambers gave a small but systematically higher result compared to the result for the NE2571 chambers (on the average 0.1% for IAEA TRS-277, 0.3% for NCS report-2 and AAPM TG-21 and 0.4% for IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51). Within the air kerma based protocols, the results obtained with the TG-21 protocol were 0.4-0.8% higher mainly due to the differences in the data used. Both absorbed dose to water based formalisms resulted in consistent values within 0.3%. The change from old to new formalisms is discussed together with the traceability of calibration factors obtained at the primary absorbed dose and air kerma standards in the reference beams (60Co). For the particular situation in Belgium (calibrations at the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry of Ghent) the change amounts to 0.1-0.6%. This is similar to the magnitude of the change determined in other countries.

Determination of absorbed dose for photon and electron beams from a linear accelerator by comparing various protocols on different phantoms

Protocols developed for high-energy dosimetry IAEA (Technical Reports Series No. 277, 1997), AAPM (Med. Phys. 10 (1983) 741: Med. Phys. 18 (1991) 73: Med. Phys. 21 (1994) 1251), IPEMB (Phys. Med. Biol. 41 (1996) 2557), and HPA (Phys. Med. Biol. 28 (1983) 1097) have continued to enhance precision in dose measurements and the optimization of radiotherapy procedures. While recent dosimetry protocols, including those due to the IAEA and IPEMB, have made a number of improvements compared with previous protocols, it is further desirable to develop absolute dosimetry methods of dose measurements. Measurements based on careful implementation of procedures contained within the various protocols have been carried out in an effort to determine the extent to which discrepancies exist among the protocols. Dose in water at dmax was measured using cylindrical and parallel-plate ionization chambers for 6 MV photon beams and 5 and 12 MeV electron beams. Results obtained from the use of the AAPM and HPA protocols for 6 MV photon beams were found to be 0.9% larger and 0.1% smaller, respectively, than those measured following the IAEA protocol. Calibration dose measurements for 5 and 12 MeV electron beams in water phantoms were found to agree to within 1%, this being well within recommendations from the ICRU and other sources regarding the accuracy of dose delivery.

Dosimetry for 252Cf neutron emitting brachytherapy sources: protocol, measurements, and calculations

The mixed-field dosimetry for 252Cf Applicator Tube (AT) type medical sources available from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has been characterized using ionization chambers, a GM counter, and Monte Carlo methods. Unlike the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG-43), specification of dose to muscle instead of water is recommended for clinical dosimetry of 252Cf medical sources. A dosimetry protocol similar to ICRU 45 was formulated with parameters determined specifically for 252Cf brachytherapy. Comparisons of experimental and calculative dosimetry results with Colvett et al. [Phys. Med. Biol. 17, 356-364 (1972)] and Krishnaswamy [Phys. Med. Biol. 17, 56-63 (1972)] were performed, and correction factors were determined to compare the different dosimetry formalisms. Using a Maxwellian model for the 252Cf neutron energy spectrum, kerma relative to muscle was determined for a variety of materials, and compared with relative kermas for external neutron beams of three different energies. Neutron isodose distributions and data necessary for clinical implementation of 252Cf AT sources are also presented.

An experimental evaluation of recent electron dosimetry codes of practice

As from the 1 January 1997, the recent IPEMB code of practice for electron dosimetry is the recommended protocol for electron beam dosimetry in the UK, replacing the previous HPA code of practice and its IPSM addendum. New recommendations for electron beam dosimetry have also been formulated recently by the AAPM and the IAEA on the use of parallel-plate ionization chambers in high-energy electron beams. Against this background, the procedures recommended in each of these codes of practice have been followed from intercomparison of the field instrument ionization chamber with a secondary standard through to the determination of absorbed dose at the reference position in the electron beam. Absorbed doses have been determined for a number of electron beam energies ranging from nominal 5 MeV through to 17 MeV, and for four different types of field instrument ionization chamber: an NE2571 graphite walled cylindrical chamber; an NACP parallel-plate chamber; a Markus parallel-plate chamber; and a Roos parallel-plate chamber. The differences in the determination of absorbed dose between the IPEMB protocol and the HPA/IPSM protocol vary from +0.5% to +1.6% at the depth of maximum dose. In addition the IPEMB measured doses are 0.2% larger than those measured following the IAEA code of practice. It may also be stated that the IPEMB measured doses at the depth of maximum dose are up to 1.5%, but generally less than 1.0%, lower than those measured by the AAPM protocol.

Dose distribution of proton beams with NMR measurements of Fricke-agarose gels

Fricke-agarose gels have been irradiated with a proton beam. Then samples have been extracted at different depths with respect to the beam penetration distance, corresponding to different irradiation doses. Relaxation times T1 and T2, measured at 17 MHz, appear sensitive to this kind of radiation. In particular, T2 exhibits three components T2a, T2b and T2c, the first two being sensitive to proton irradiation. At 1% agarose concentration, the relaxation rates R1 = 1/T1, R2a = 1/T2a and R2b = 1/T2b of samples irradiated with both modulated and unmodulated beams, increase with the dose, irrespective of the beam energy. The yield G of Fe3+ ions per 100 eV of absorbed energy is always higher than that obtained for gamma irradiated samples.

Deduction of the air w value in a therapeutic proton beam

Utilization of air-filled ionization chambers with 60Co-based reference calibrations in proton dosimetry requires application of water to air stopping power ratios and the mean energy required to produce an ion pair (W or w). Accepted uncertainties in current w values for protons leads to a dosimetric uncertainty of 4 per cent when ionization chambers are employed to measure absorbed dose. For this reason, proton dosimetry protocols recommend the use of calorimetry as the absorbed dose standard. We used calorimetry in conjunction with an ionization chamber with 60Co reference calibrations to deduce the proton w value in the entrance region of a 250 MeV proton beam: 34.2 +/- 0.5 eV. Application of this w value, with its 1.5 per cent uncertainty, allows determination of dose in therapeutic proton beams, with uncertainties comparable to photon and electron values.

Supplement to the code of practice for clinical proton dosimetry. ECHED (European Clinical Heavy Particle Dosimetry Group)

The 'Code of Practice for Clinical Proton Dosimetry' (Vynckier, S., Bonnett, D.E. and Jones, D.T.L. Code of practice for clinical proton dosimetry. Radiother. Oncol. 20: 53-63, 1991) was published in 1991, but since then new data for mass stopping powers have been reported and consideration has been given to the specification of absorbed dose in water instead of the original recommendation of absorbed dose in tissue. This supplement summarises the basic recommendations of the original Code of Practice and incorporates the new stopping power data for dose specification in water.

A formulation for high-energy photon and electron beam dosimetry

A formalism is derived to estimate the absorbed dose to a medium irradiated by high-energy photon and electron beams using an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of the exposure and this is compared with those in particular NACP and AAPM protocols. The influence of the humidity in air on the response of the chamber is taken into account in combination with various correction factors. In the present proposal, the fundamental factors needed for converting the reading of a chamber, calibrated in exposure (or air kerma), into absorbed dose are calculated for dry air in the calibration beam. For the user's beam, correction factors depending on the atmospheric conditions prevailing in the laboratory are given.

Code of practice for clinical proton dosimetry

The objective of this document is to make recommendations for the determination of absorbed dose to tissue for clinical proton beams and to achieve uniformity in proton dosimetry. A Code of Practice has been chosen, providing specific guidelines for the choice of the detector and the method of determination of absorbed dose for proton beams only. This Code of Practice is confined specifically to the determination of absorbed dose and is not concerned with the biological effects of proton beams. It is recommended that dosimeters be calibrated by comparison with a calorimeter. If this is not available, a Faraday cup, or alternatively, an ionization chamber, with a 60Co calibration factor should be used. Physical parameters for determining the dose from tissue-equivalent ionization chamber measurements are given together with a worksheet. It is recommended that calibrations be carried out in water at the centre of the spread-out-Bragg-peak and that dose distributions be measured in a water phantom. It is estimated that the error in the calibrations will be less than +/- 5% (1 S.D.) in all cases. Adoption and implementation of this Code of Practice will facilitate the exchange of clinical information.