Comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 absorbed dose to water protocols in the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA TRS-398) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM TG-51) have published new protocols for the calibration of radiotherapy beams. These protocols are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water in a standards laboratory's reference quality beam. This paper compares the recommendations of the two protocols in two ways: (i) by analysing in detail the differences in the basic data included in the two protocols for photon and electron beam dosimetry and (ii) by performing measurements in clinical photon and electron beams and determining the absorbed dose to water following the recommendations of the two protocols. Measurements were made with two Farmer-type ionization chambers and three plane-parallel ionization chamber types in 6, 18 and 25 MV photon beams and 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18 MeV electron beams. The Farmer-type chambers used were NE 2571 and PTW 30001, and the plane-parallel chambers were a Scanditronix-Wellh?fer NACP and Roos, and a PTW Markus chamber. For photon beams, the measured ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw ranged between 0.997 and 1.001, with a mean value of 0.999. The ratios for the beam quality correction factors kQ were found to agree to within about +/-0.2% despite significant differences in the method of beam quality specification for photon beams and in the basic data entering into kQ. For electron beams, dose measurements were made using direct N(D,w) calibrations of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers in a 60Co gamma-ray beam, as well as cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers in a high-energy electron beam. For the direct N(D,w) calibrations the ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw were found to lie between 0.994 and 1.018 depending upon the chamber and electron beam energy used, with mean values of 0.996, 1.006, and 1.017, respectively, for the cylindrical, well-guarded and not well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. The Dw ratios measured for the cross-calibration procedures varied between 0.993 and 0.997. The largest discrepancies for electron beams between the two protocols arise from the use of different data for the perturbation correction factors p(wall) and p(dis) of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, all in 60Co. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and the quantities in the two protocols.     

Clinical reference dosimetry: comparison between AAPM TG-21 and TG-51 protocols

We compare the results of absorbed dose determined at reference conditions according to the AAPM TG-21 dose calibration protocol and the new AAPM TG-51 protocol. The AAPM TG-21 protocol for absorbed dose calibration is based on ionization chambers having exposure calibration factors for 60Co gamma rays, N(x). The new AAPM TG-51 dosimetry protocol for absorbed dose calibration is based on ionization chambers having 60Co absorbed dose-to-water calibration factor, N60Co(D,w). This study shows that the dose changes are within 1% for a cobalt beam, 0.5% for photon energies of 6 and 18 MV, and 2%-3% for electron beams with energies of 6 to 20 MeV. The chamber primary calibration factors, Nx and N60Co(D,w), are traceable to the Canadian primary standards laboratory (NRCC). We also present estimated dose changes between the two protocols when calibration factors are traceable to NIST in the United States.     

Comparing calibration methods of electron beams using plane-parallel chambers with absorbed-dose to water based protocols

Recent absorbed-dose-based protocols allow for two methods of calibrating electron beams using plane-parallel chambers, one using the N(Co)D,w for a plane-parallel chamber, and the other relying on cross-calibration of the plane-parallel chamber in a high-energy electron beam against a cylindrical chamber which has an N(Co)D,w factor. The second method is recommended as it avoids problems associated with the Pwall correction factors at 60Co for plane-parallel chambers which are used in the determination of the beam quality conversion factors. In this article we investigate the consistency of these two methods for the PTW Roos, Scanditronics NACP02, and PTW Markus chambers. We processed our data using both the AAPM TG-51 and the IAEA TRS-398 protocols. Wall correction factors in 60Co beams and absorbed-dose beam quality conversion factors for 20 MeV electrons were derived for these chambers by cross-calibration against a cylindrical ionization chamber. Systematic differences of up to 1.6% were found between our values of Pwall and those from the Monte Carlo calculations underlying AAPM TG-51, and up to 0.6% when comparing with the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. The differences in Pwall translate directly into differences in the beam quality conversion factors in the respective protocols. The relatively large spread in the experimental data of Pwall, and consequently the absorbed-dose beam quality conversion factor, confirms the importance of the cross-calibration technique when using plane-parallel chambers for calibrating clinical electron beams. We confirmed that for well-guarded plane-parallel chambers, the fluence perturbation correction factor at d(max) is not significantly different from the value at d(ref). For the PTW Markus chamber the variation in the latter factor is consistent with published fits relating it to average energy at depth.     

The use of plane-parallel chambers in electron dosimetry without any cross-calibration

Current dosimetry protocols from AAPM, DIN and IAEA recommend a cross-calibration for plane-parallel chambers against a calibrated thimble chamber for electron dosimetry. The rationale for this is the assumed chamber-to-chamber variation of plane-parallel chambers and the large uncertainty in the wall perturbation factor (p(wall)60Co)pp at 60Co for plane-parallel chambers. We have confirmed the results of other authors that chamber-to-chamber variation of the investigated chambers of types Roos, Markus, Advanced Markus and Farmer is less than 0.3%. Starting with a calibration factor for absorbed dose to water and on the basis of the three dosimetry protocols AAPM TG-51, DIN 6800-2 (slightly modified) and IAEA TRS-398, values for (p(wall)60Co)Roos of 1.024 +/- 0.005, (p(wall)60Co)Markus of 1.016 +/- 0.005 and (p(wall)60Co)Advanced Markus of 1.014 +/- 0.005 have been determined. In future this will permit electron dosimetry with the above-listed plane-parallel chambers having a calibration factor N(D, w)60Co without the necessity for cross-calibration against a thimble chamber.     

Reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon beams: comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and AAPM TG-21 dosimetry protocols

Task Group 51 (TG-51) of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has recently developed a new protocol for the calibration of high-energy photon and electron beams used in radiation therapy. The formalism and the dosimetry procedures recommended in this protocol are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose-to-water in a standards laboratory's 60Co gamma ray beam. This is different from the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-21 protocol, which are based on an exposure calibration factor of an ionization chamber in a 60Co beam. The purpose of this work is to compare the determination of absorbed dose-to-water in reference conditions in high-energy photon beams following the recommendations given in the two dosimetry protocols. This is realized by performing calibrations of photon beams with nominal accelerating potential of 6, 18 and 25 MV, generated by an Elekta MLCi and SL25 series linear accelerator. Two widely used Farmer-type ionization chambers having different composition, PTW 30001 (PMMA wall) and NE 2571 (graphite wall), were used for this study. Ratios of AAPM TG-51 to AAPM TG-21 doses to water are found to be 1.008, 1.007 and 1.009 at 6, 18 and 25 MV, respectively when the PTW chamber is used. The corresponding results for the NE chamber are 1.009, 1.010 and 1.013. The uncertainties for the ratios of the absorbed dose determined by the two protocols are estimated to be about 1.5%. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and quantities in the two protocols, as well as the influence of the implementation of the different standards for chamber calibration. The latter has been found to have a considerable influence on the differences in clinical dosimetry, even larger than the adoption of the new data and recommended procedures, as most intrinsic differences cancel out due to the adoption of the new formalism.     

Wall correction factors for calibration of plane-parallel ionization chambers with high-energy photon beams

Most dosimetry protocols recommend that calibration of plane-parallel ionization chambers be performed in an electron beam of sufficiently high energy by comparison with cylindrical chambers. For various plane-parallel chambers, the 1997 IAEA TRS-381 protocol includes an overall perturbation factor pQ for electron beams, a wall correction factor p(wall) for a 60Co beam and the product of two wall corrections k(att)k(m) for 60Co in-air calibration. The recommended values of p(wall) for plane-parallel chambers, however, are limited to certain phantom materials and a 60Co beam, and are not given for other phantom materials and x-ray beams. In this work, the p(wall) values of the commercially available NACP, PTW/Markus and PTW/Roos plane-parallel chambers in a solid water phantom have been determined with 60Co and 4 and 10 MV photon beams. The k(att)k(m) values for the NACP and PTW/Markus chambers have also been obtained. The wall correction factors p(wall) and k(att)k(m) have been determined by intercomparison with a calibrated Farmer chamber. The average value of p(wall) for these plane-parallel chambers was 1.005 +/- 0.1% (1 SD) for 60Co beams and 1.007 +/- 0.2% (1 SD) for both 4 MV and 10 MV photons. The k(att)k(m) values for the NACP and PTW/Markus chambers were about 1.5% lower than other published data.     

Determination of absorbed dose calibration factors for therapy level electron beam ionization chambers

Over several years the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) has been developing an absorbed dose calibration service for electron beam radiotherapy. To test this service, a number of trial calibrations of therapy level electron beam ionization chambers have been carried out during the last 3 years. These trials involved 17 UK radiotherapy centres supplying a total of 46 chambers of the NACP, Markus, Roos and Farmer types. Calibration factors were derived from the primary standard calorimeter at seven energies in the range 4 to 19 MeV with an estimated uncertainty of +/-1.5% at the 95% confidence level. Investigations were also carried out into chamber perturbation, polarity effects, ion recombination and repeatability of the calibration process. The instruments were returned to the radiotherapy centres for measurements to be carried out comparing the NPL direct calibration with the 1996 IPEMB air kerma based Code of Practice. It was found that, in general, all chambers of a particular type showed the same energy response. However, it was found that polarity and recombination corrections were quite variable for Markus chambers-differences in the polarity correction of up to 1% were seen. Perturbation corrections were obtained and were found to agree well with the standard data used in the IPEMB Code. The results of the comparison between the NPL calibration and IPEMB Code show agreement between the two methods at the +/-1% level for the NACP and Farmer chambers, but there is a significant difference for the Markus chambers of around 2%. This difference between chamber types is most likely to be due to the design of the Markus chamber.     

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.     

Beam quality corrections for parallel-plate ion chambers in electron reference dosimetry

Current dosimetry protocols (AAPM, IAEA, IPEM, DIN) recommend parallel-plate ionization chambers for dose measurements in clinical electron beams. This study presents detailed Monte Carlo simulations of beam quality correction factors for four different types of parallel-plate chambers: NACP-02, Markus, Advanced Markus and Roos. These chambers differ in constructive details which should have notable impact on the resulting perturbation corrections, hence on the beam quality corrections. The results reveal deviations to the recommended beam quality corrections given in the IAEA TRS-398 protocol in the range of 0%-2% depending on energy and chamber type. For well-guarded chambers, these deviations could be traced back to a non-unity and energy-dependent wall perturbation correction. In the case of the guardless Markus chamber, a nearly energy-independent beam quality correction is resulting as the effects of wall and cavity perturbation compensate each other. For this chamber, the deviations to the recommended values are the largest and may exceed 2%. From calculations of type-B uncertainties including effects due to uncertainties of the underlying cross-sectional data as well as uncertainties due to the chamber material composition and chamber geometry, the overall uncertainty of calculated beam quality correction factors was estimated to be <0.7%. Due to different chamber positioning recommendations given in the national and international dosimetry protocols, an additional uncertainty in the range of 0.2%-0.6% is present. According to the IAEA TRS-398 protocol, the uncertainty in clinical electron dosimetry using parallel-plate ion chambers is 1.7%. This study may help to reduce this uncertainty significantly.     

Air kerma calibration factors and chamber correction values for PTW soft x-ray, NACP and Roos ionization chambers at very low x-ray energies

This paper evaluates the characteristics of ionization chambers for the measurement of absorbed dose to water using very low-energy x-rays. The values of the chamber correction factor, k(ch), used in the IPEMB 1996 code of practice for the UK secondary standard ionization chambers (PTW type M23342 and PTW type M23344), the Roos (PTW type 34001) and NACP electron chambers are derived. The responses in air of the small and large soft x-ray chambers (PTW type M23342 and PTW type M23344) and the NACP and Roos electron ionization chambers were compared. Besides the soft x-ray chambers, the NACP and Roos chambers can be used for very low-energy x-ray dosimetry provided that they are used in the restricted energy range for which their response does not change by more than 5%. The chamber correction factor was found by comparing the absorbed dose to water determined using the dosimetry protocol recommended for low-energy x-rays with that for very low-energy x-rays. The overlap energy range was extended using data from Grosswendt and Knight. Chamber correction factors given in this paper are chamber dependent, varying from 1.037 to 1.066 for a PTW type M23344 chamber, which is very different from a value of unity given in the IPEMB code. However, the values of k(ch) determined in this paper agree with those given in the DIN standard within experimental uncertainty. The authors recommend that the very low-energy section of the IPEMB code is amended to include the most up-to-date values of k(ch).     

Calibration of plane-parallel chambers and determination of p(wall) for the NACP and Roos chambers for 60Co gamma-ray beams

Procedures for the calibration and use of plane-parallel ionization chambers in high-energy electron and photon beams have been given in the international code of practice IAEA TRS-381. In the present work, plane-parallel ionization chambers of the type PTW-34001 Roos and Scanditronix NACP02 have been calibrated using two N(K)-based procedures. For the NACP chamber the difference between the N(D,air) chamber factors determined in an electron beam and in a 60Co gamma-ray beam, respectively, is of the same magnitude as the experimental uncertainty. Results for the PTW Roos chambers, however, do not agree, in accordance with recent findings of other authors. The value determined in a 60Co gamma-ray beam is questioned and the reason for the discrepancy assigned to the correction factor for the perturbation due to the chamber wall, p(wall). New values of p(wall) have been experimentally determined by comparing absorbed dose measurements based on air-kerma and absorbed dose to water calibration procedures. A new p(wall) factor for the Roos chamber in 60Co gamma-ray beams in water (1.009+/-0.6%) was derived as the weighted average of the different determinations. The value is not significantly higher than the p(wall) factor given in TRS-381 (1.003+/-1.5%), but the combined standard uncertainty is reduced. The chamber to chamber variation for six commercial PTW Roos chambers and a Roos prototype was found to be very small.     

A dosimetry study comparing NCS report-5, IAEA TRS-381, AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398 in three clinical electron beam energies

New codes of practice for reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams have been published recently, to replace the air kerma based codes of practice that have determined the dosimetry of these beams for the past twenty years. In the present work, we compared dosimetry based on the two most widespread absorbed dose based recommendations (AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398) with two air kerma based recommendations (NCS report-5 and IAEA TRS-381). Measurements were performed in three clinical electron beam energies using two NE2571-type cylindrical chambers, two Markus-type plane-parallel chambers and two NACP-02-type plane-parallel chambers. Dosimetry based on direct calibrations of all chambers in 60Co was investigated, as well as dosimetry based on cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers against a cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. Furthermore, 60Co perturbation factors for plane-parallel chambers were derived. It is shown that the use of 60Co calibration factors could result in deviations of more than 2% for plane-parallel chambers between the old and new codes of practice, whereas the use of cross-calibration factors, which is the first recommendation in the new codes, reduces the differences to less than 0.8% for all situations investigated here. The results thus show that neither the chamber-to-chamber variations, nor the obtained absolute dose values are significantly altered by changing from air kerma based dosimetry to absorbed dose based dosimetry when using calibration factors obtained from the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry, Ghent, Belgium. The values of the 60Co perturbation factor for plane-parallel chambers (k(att) x k(m) for the air kerma based and p(wall) for the absorbed based codes of practice) that are obtained from comparing the results based on 60Co calibrations and cross-calibrations are within the experimental uncertainties in agreement with the results from other investigators.     

Experimental determination of pCo perturbation factors for plane-parallel chambers

For plane-parallel chambers used in electron dosimetry, modern dosimetry protocols recommend a cross-calibration against a calibrated cylindrical chamber. The rationale for this is the unacceptably large (up to 3-4%) chamber-to-chamber variations of the perturbation factors (pwall)Co, which have been reported for plane-parallel chambers of a given type. In some recent publications, it was shown that this is no longer the case for modern plane-parallel chambers. The aims of the present study are to obtain reliable information about the variation of the perturbation factors for modern types of plane-parallel chambers, and-if this variation is found to be acceptably small-to determine type-specific mean values for these perturbation factors which can be used for absorbed dose measurements in electron beams using plane-parallel chambers. In an extensive multi-center study, the individual perturbation factors pCo (which are usually assumed to be equal to (pwall)Co) for a total of 35 plane-parallel chambers of the Roos type, 15 chambers of the Markus type and 12 chambers of the Advanced Markus type were determined. From a total of 188 cross-calibration measurements, variations of the pCo values for different chambers of the same type of at most 1.0%, 0.9% and 0.6% were found for the chambers of the Roos, Markus and Advanced Markus types, respectively. The mean pCo values obtained from all measurements are [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]; the relative experimental standard deviation of the individual pCo values is less than 0.24% for all chamber types; the relative standard uncertainty of the mean pCo values is 1.1%.     

Polarity effect of plane-parallel ionization chambers in electron radiation

Although plane-parallel ionization chambers have been in use for some time, there is still much to be learned about their performance characteristics. This work is concerned with the polarity effect in electron beams about which there is little published data. The investigations involved several popular ionization chambers; the PTW Markus chamber, the NACP chamber and its Calcam version, the Vinten-631 chamber, and the NE 2571 (Farmer-type) thimble chamber. The chambers were irradiated in electron beams of nominal energies between 4 MeV and 18 MeV. It was found in this study that the NACP, Markus and Vinten chambers require a correction of the order of 0.2% in the energy range between 4.5 MeV and 18 MeV. The overall behaviour of the Calcam chamber was similar with the exception of energies below 4 MeV. The depth dependence of the polarity effect seemed closely related to the mean beam energy at the depth of measurement. There is some evidence that the effect is also dependent on the angular spread of the electron beam and its spectrum. The authors considered how best to quantify the polarity effect practically, and propose that it should be expressed as a correction factor to be applied to readings with one particular chamber bias.     

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.     

Electron dosimetry based on the absorbed dose to water concept: a comparison of the AAPM TG-51 and DIN 6800-2 protocols.

The dosimetry protocols DIN 6800-2 and AAPM TG-51, both based on the absorbed dose to water concept, are compared in their theoretical background and in their application to electron dosimetry. The agreement and disagreement in correction factors and energy parameters used in both protocols will be shown and discussed. Measurements with three different types of ionization chambers were performed and evaluated according to both protocols. As a result the perturbation correction factor P(60Co)wall for the Roos chamber was determined to 1.024 +/- 0.5%.     

An investigation of the response of a simple design of plane-parallel chamber

This paper reports the experimental investigation of a simple design of plane-parallel electron chamber, which has very thin layers of copper (0.018 or 0.035 mm) as conducting material. Measurements comparing the prototype chambers with other ionization chambers (PTW/Markus, NACP) have been carried out, both in a 60Co gamma-ray beam and in high-energy electron beams. The results show that the Ce factors (proportional to the product of water/air stopping-power ratio and perturbation factor) for converting the in-phantom air-kerma-calibrated chamber reading to the absorbed dose to water are nearly constant for incident electron energies between 4 and 11 MeV for prototype chambers with 0.018 mm thick copper layers and between 4 and 15 MeV for chambers with 0.035 mm thick copper layers. Other aspects concerning these prototype chambers, such as polarity effect, cable effect, collecting efficiency and angular response, have also been studied and the results are presented in this paper.     

The characterization of the Advanced Markus ionization chamber for use in reference electron dosimetry in the UK

The IPEM Code of Practice (IPEM 2003) for electron dosimetry for radiotherapy beams recommends design requirements for parallel-plate ionization chambers used to determine absorbed dose to water in an electron beam. The Classic Markus design has been found not to meet these requirements. The Advanced Markus ionization chamber has been designed to rectify the problems associated with the Classic Markus ionization chamber. The response of three Advanced Markus ionization chambers was investigated and compared to the designated chamber types. Absorbed dose to water calibration factors were derived at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) for each ionization chamber at seven electron energies in the range nominally 4-19 MeV. Investigations were carried out into chamber settling, polarity effects, ion recombination and the chamber perturbation. The response of the ionization chambers in a clinical beam was also investigated. In general all three Advanced Markus ionization chambers showed the same energy response. The magnitude of the polarity effect was typically 5% at a nominal energy of 4 MeV. There was discrepancy between the polarity measurements made at the NPL and in the clinic. The recommendation of this study is that this chamber type is not suitable for reference dosimetry in electron beams.     

Monte Carlo calculations of correction factors for plane-parallel ionization chambers in clinical electron dosimetry

Recent standard dosimetry protocols recommend that plane-parallel ionization chambers be used in the measurements of depth-dose distributions or the calibration of low-energy electron beams with beam quality R50 <4 g/cm2. In electron dosimetry protocols with the plane-parallel chambers, the wall correction factor, Pwall, in water is assumed to be unity and the replacement correction factor, Prepl, is taken to be unity for well-guarded plane-parallel chambers, at all measurement depths. This study calculated Pwall and Prepl for NACP-02, Markus, and Roos plane-parallel chambers in clinical electron dosimetry using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code system. The Pwall values for the plane-parallel chambers increased rapidly as a function of depth in water, especially at lower energy. The value around R50 for NACP-02 was about 10% greater than unity at 4 MeV. The effect was smaller for higher electron energies. Similarly, Prepl values with depth increased drastically at the region with the steep dose gradient for lower energy. For Markus Prepl departed more than 10% from unity close to R50 due to the narrow guard ring width. Prepl for NACP-02 and Roos was close to unity in the plateau region of depth-dose curves that includes a reference depth, dref. It was also found that the ratio of the dose to water and the dose to the sensitive volume in the air cavity for the plane-parallel chambers, Dw/[Dair]pp, at d(ref) differs significantly from that assumed by electron dosimetry protocols.