Electron fluence perturbation correction factors for solid state detectors irradiated in megavoltage electron beams

The perturbation correction factor gamma(p) is defined as the deviation of the absorbed dose in the medium from that predicted by the Spencer-Attix extension of the Bragg-Gray cavity theory where the medium occupies exactly the same volume as the solid state cavity and the electron fluence energy spectrum in the cavity is identical in shape, but not necessarily in magnitude, to that in the medium. The value of gamma(p) has been examined for TL detectors irradiated in megavoltage electron beams (5-20 MeV) using the EGS4 Monte Carlo code. LiF and CaF2 solid state detectors simulated were standard size discs of thickness 1 mm and diameter 3.61 mm irradiated in a water phantom with their centres at d(max) or close to it. Values of gamma(p) for LiF ranged from 0.998 +/- 0.005 to 0.994 +/- 0.005 for electron beams with initial energies of 5 and 20 MeV respectively. For CaF2 the corresponding values were 0.956 +/- 0.006 to 0.989 +/- 0.006 for the same size cavities irradiated at the same depth. EGS4 Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that the total electron fluence (primary electrons and delta-rays) in these solid state detector materials is significantly different from that in water for the same incident electron energy and depth of irradiation. Thus the Spencer-Attix assumption that the electron fluence energy spectrum in the cavity is identical in shape to that in the medium is violated. Differences in the total electron fluence give rise to electron fluence perturbation correction factors which were up to 5% less than unity for CaF2, indicating a strong violation in this case, but were generally less than 1% for LiF. It is the density of the cavity which perturbs the electron fluence, but it is actually the atomic number differences between the medium and cavity that are responsible for the large electron fluence perturbation correction factors for detectors irradiated close to d(max) because the atomic number affects the change in stopping power with energy. When correction is made for the difference between the electron fluence spectrum in the uniform water phantom and the solid state cavity, the Spencer-Attix cavity equation predicts the dose to water within 0.3% in both clinical and monoenergetic electron beams. Harder's formulation for computing the average mass collision stopping power of water to calcium fluoride, surprisingly, requires perturbation correction factors that are closer to unity than those determined using the Spencer-Attix integrals at depths close to d(max).     

Monte-Carlo-based perturbation and beam quality correction factors for thimble ionization chambers in high-energy photon beams

This paper presents a detailed investigation into the calculation of perturbation and beam quality correction factors for ionization chambers in high-energy photon beams with the use of Monte Carlo simulations. For a model of the NE2571 Farmer-type chamber, all separate perturbation factors as found in the current dosimetry protocols were calculated in a fixed order and compared to the currently available data. Furthermore, the NE2571 Farmer-type and a model of the PTW31010 thimble chamber were used to calculate the beam quality correction factor kQ. The calculations of kQ showed good agreement with the published values in the current dosimetry protocols AAPM TG-51 and IAEA TRS-398 and a large set of published measurements. Still, some of the single calculated perturbation factors deviate from the commonly used ones; especially prepl deviates more than 0.5%. The influence of various sources of uncertainties in the simulations is investigated for the NE2571 model. The influence of constructive details of the chamber stem shows a negligible dependence on calculated values. A comparison between a full linear accelerator source and a simple collimated point source with linear accelerator photon spectra yields comparable results. As expected, the calculation of the overall beam quality correction factor is sensitive to the mean ionization energy of graphite used. The measurement setup (source-surface distance versus source-axis distance) had no influence on the calculated values.     

GafChromic RTQA film for routine quality assurance of high-energy photon beams

Self-developing film offers many advantages over conventional radiographic verification film for routine radiotherapy quality assurance (QA). This paper presents results from an initial evaluation of a beam measurement system using GafChromic RTQA film and a flatbed scanner. Variability and energy dependence of the film calibration and accuracy of scanner readout are investigated in the context of QA measurements. For exposures of film between 2 and 4 Gy, the system is adequate for measurement of beam dimensions, as in multi-leaf collimator (MLC) offsets and secondary jaw calibrations, where agreement with conventional film measurements is within 0.5 mm. However, the measurement of absolute dose is subject to errors of about 25 cGy.     

Perturbation correction factors for the NACP-02 plane-parallel ionization chamber in water in high-energy electron beams

Recent dosimetry protocols for clinical high-energy electron beams recommend measurements of absorbed dose-to-water with a plane-parallel or cylindrical ionization chamber. For well-guarded plane-parallel ionization chambers, the ionization chamber perturbation factor in water, p(Q), has a recommended value of unity in all protocols. This assumption was investigated in detail in this study for one of the recommended ionization chambers in the protocols: the Scanditronix NACP-02 plane-parallel ionization chamber. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the NACP-02 ionization chamber with the EGSnrc code were validated against backscatter experiments. MC simulations were then used to calculate p(wall), p(cav) and p(Q) perturbation factors and water-to-air Spencer-Attix stopping powers in 4-19 MeV electron beams of a calibration laboratory (NPL), and in 6-22 MeV clinical electron beams from a Varian CL2300 accelerator. Differences between calculated and the currently recommended (Burns et al 1996 Med. Phys. 23 383-8) stopping powers, water-to-air, were found to be limited to 0.9% at depths between the reference depth z(ref) and the depth where the dose has decreased to 50% of the maximum dose, R50. p(wall) was found to exceed unity by 2.3% in the 4 MeV NPL calibration beam at z(ref). For higher energy electron beams p(wall) decreased to a value of about 1%. Combined with a p(cav) about 1% below unity for all energies at z(ref), this was found to cause p(Q) to exceed unity significantly for all energies. In clinical electron beams all three perturbation factors were found to increase with depth. Our findings indicate that the perturbation factors have to be taken into account in calibration procedures and for clinical depth dose measurements with the NACP-02 ionization chamber.     

A diamond detector in the dosimetry of high-energy electron and photon beams.

A diamond detector type 60003 (PTW Freiburg) was examined for the purpose of dosimetry with 4-20 MeV electron beams and 4-25 MV photon beams. Results were compared with those obtained by using a Markus chamber for electron beams and an ionization chamber for photon beams. Dose distributions were measured in a water phantom with the detector connected to a Unidos electrometer (PTW Freiburg). After a pre-irradiation of about 5 Gy the diamond detector shows a stability in response which is better than that of an ionization chamber. The current of the diamond detector was measured under variation of photon beam dose rate between 0.1 and 7 Gy min(-1). Different FSDs were chosen. Furthermore the pulse repetition frequency and the depth of the detector were changed. The electron beam dose rate was varied between 0.23 and 4.6 Gy min(-1) by changing the pulse-repetition frequency. The response shows no energy dependence within the covered photon-beam energy range. Between 4 MeV and 18 MeV electron beam energy it shows only a small energy dependence of about 2%, as expected from theory. For smaller electron energies the response increases significantly and an influence of the contact material used for the diamond detector can be surmised. A slight sublinearity of the current and dose rate was found. Detector current and dose rate are related by the expression i alpha Ddelta, where i is the detector current, D is the dose rate and delta is a correction factor of approximately 0.963. Depth-dose curves of photon beams, measured with the diamond detector, show a slight overestimation compared with measurements with the ionization chamber. This overestimation is compensated for by the above correction term. The superior spatial resolution of the diamond detector leads to minor deviations between depth-dose curves of electron beams measured with a Markus chamber and a diamond detector.     

Evaluation of film and thermoluminescent dosimetry of high-energy electron beams in heterogeneous phantoms.

Film and thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) are investigated in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by high-energy electron beams. Both film and TLD are practical dosimeters for multiple and moving beam radiotherapy. The accuracy and precision of these dosimeters for radiation dose measurements in homogeneous water-equivalent phantoms has been discussed in the literature. However, film and TLD are often used for dose measurements in heterogeneous phantoms. In those situations perturbations are produced which are related to the density and atomic number of the phantom material and the physical size and orientation of the dosimeter. In our experiments the relative dose measurements in homogeneous phantoms were the same regardless of dosimeter or dosimeter orientation. However, significant differences were observed between the dose measurements within the inhomogeneity. These differences were influenced by the type and orientation of the dosimeter in addition to the properties of the heterogeneity. These differences could be reproduced with Monte Carlo calculations and modeling of the experimental conditions.     

AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams.

A protocol is prescribed for clinical reference dosimetry of external beam radiation therapy using photon beams with nominal energies between 60Co and 50 MV and electron beams with nominal energies between 4 and 50 MeV. The protocol was written by Task Group 51 (TG-51) of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and has been formally approved by the AAPM for clinical use. The protocol uses ion chambers with absorbed-dose-to-water calibration factors, N(60Co)D,w which are traceable to national primary standards, and the equation D(Q)w = MkQN(60Co)D,w where Q is the beam quality of the clinical beam, D(Q)w is the absorbed dose to water at the point of measurement of the ion chamber placed under reference conditions, M is the fully corrected ion chamber reading, and kQ is the quality conversion factor which converts the calibration factor for a 60Co beam to that for a beam of quality Q. Values of kQ are presented as a function of Q for many ion chambers. The value of M is given by M = PionP(TP)PelecPpolMraw, where Mraw is the raw, uncorrected ion chamber reading and Pion corrects for ion recombination, P(TP) for temperature and pressure variations, Pelec for inaccuracy of the electrometer if calibrated separately, and Ppol for chamber polarity effects. Beam quality, Q, is specified (i) for photon beams, by %dd(10)x, the photon component of the percentage depth dose at 10 cm depth for a field size of 10x10 cm2 on the surface of a phantom at an SSD of 100 cm and (ii) for electron beams, by R50, the depth at which the absorbed-dose falls to 50% of the maximum dose in a beam with field size > or =10x10 cm2 on the surface of the phantom (> or =20x20 cm2 for R50>8.5 cm) at an SSD of 100 cm. R50 is determined directly from the measured value of I50, the depth at which the ionization falls to 50% of its maximum value. All clinical reference dosimetry is performed in a water phantom. The reference depth for calibration purposes is 10 cm for photon beams and 0.6R50-0.1 cm for electron beams. For photon beams clinical reference dosimetry is performed in either an SSD or SAD setup with a 10x10 cm2 field size defined on the phantom surface for an SSD setup or at the depth of the detector for an SAD setup. For electron beams clinical reference dosimetry is performed with a field size of > or =10x10 cm2 (> or =20x20 cm2 for R50>8.5 cm) at an SSD between 90 and 110 cm. This protocol represents a major simplification compared to the AAPM's TG-21 protocol in the sense that large tables of stopping-power ratios and mass-energy absorption coefficients are not needed and the user does not need to calculate any theoretical dosimetry factors. Worksheets for various situations are presented along with a list of equipment required.     

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.     

Comparison of ferrous sulfate (Fricke) and ionization dosimetry for high-energy photon and electron beams

Dose measurements using Fricke and ionization methods were compared for 60Co gamma rays, 4-25-MV photons, and 10-25-MeV electrons. Fricke derived doses based on a constant yield (epsilon mG) were in good agreement with ionization derived doses based on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 21 protocol and the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) ND calibration or the NRC proposed Nx. These measurements also confirmed the validity of the double-voltage technique in the collection efficiency correction, even for swept electron beams. Assuming the correctness of the ionization derived doses, the radiation yield appeared to be 1% higher and to increase with photon energy when irradiation vessels were made of Pyrex but not with polystyrene cells. These glass wall effects could be due to the scattering perturbation of electrons between inhomogeneous materials and, in particular for photon beams, due to the mismatch in mass energy absorption ratios and mass collision stopping power ratios between the Fricke dosimeter and the wall materials.     

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.     

Electron fluence correction factors for various materials in clinical electron beams

Relative to solid water, electron fluence correction factors at the depth of dose maximum in bone, lung, aluminum, and copper for nominal electron beam energies of 9 MeV and 15 MeV of the Clinac 18 accelerator have been determined experimentally and by Monte Carlo calculation. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure depth doses in these materials. The measured relative dose at dmax in the various materials versus that of solid water, when irradiated with the same number of monitor units, has been used to calculate the ratio of electron fluence for the various materials to that of solid water. The beams of the Clinac 18 were fully characterized using the EGS4/BEAM system. EGSnrc with the relativistic spin option turned on was used to optimize the primary electron energy at the exit window, and to calculate depth doses in the five phantom materials using the optimized phase-space data. Normalizing all depth doses to the dose maximum in solid water stopping power ratio corrected, measured depth doses and calculated depth doses differ by less than +/- 1% at the depth of dose maximum and by less than 4% elsewhere. Monte Carlo calculated ratios of doses in each material to dose in LiF were used to convert the TLD measurements at the dose maximum into dose at the center of the TLD in the phantom material. Fluence perturbation correction factors for a LiF TLD at the depth of dose maximum deduced from these calculations amount to less than 1% for 0.15 mm thick TLDs in low Z materials and are between 1% and 3% for TLDs in Al and Cu phantoms. Electron fluence ratios of the studied materials relative to solid water vary between 0.83+/-0.01 and 1.55+/-0.02 for materials varying in density from 0.27 g/cm3 (lung) to 8.96 g/cm3 (Cu). The difference in electron fluence ratios derived from measurements and calculations ranges from -1.6% to +0.2% at 9 MeV and from -1.9% to +0.2% at 15 MeV and is not significant at the 1sigma level. Excluding the data for Cu, electron fluence correction factors for open electron beams are approximately proportional to the electron density of the phantom material and only weakly dependent on electron beam energy.     

Monte Carlo calculations of beam quality correction factors kQ for electron dosimetry with a parallel-plate Roos chamber

Current dosimetry protocols (AAPM, IAEA, DIN) recommend the use of parallel-plate ionization chambers for the measurement of absorbed dose-to-water in clinical electron beams. For well-guarded plane-parallel chambers, it is assumed that the perturbation correction pQ is unity for all electron energies. In this study, we present detailed Monte Carlo simulations with the EGSnrc code for the widely used Roos parallel-plate chamber which is, besides other plane-parallel chamber types, recommended in all protocols. We have calculated the perturbation corrections pcav and pwall for a wide range of electron energies and for 60Co. While our results confirm the recommended value of unity for the cavity perturbation pcav, the wall-correction factor pwall depends on electron energy and decreases with increasing electron energy. For the lowest electron energies in this study (R50 approximately 2 cm), pwall deviates from unity by up to 1.5%. Using the perturbation factors for the different electron energies and those for the reference beam quality, 60Co, we have calculated the beam quality correction factor kQ. For electron energies E0>9 MeV (R50>4 cm), the calculated values are in good agreement with the data published in the IAEA protocol. Deviations in the range of 0.5-0.8% are found for R50<3 cm.     

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

A comparison of the determination of absorbed dose to water in reference conditions with high-energy electron beams (Enominal of 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 18 MeV) following the recommendations given in the AAPM TG-51 and in the original TG-21 dosimetry protocols has been made. Six different ionization chamber types have been used, two Farmer-type cylindrical (PTW 30001, PMMA wall; NE 2571, graphite wall) and four plane parallel (PTW Markus, and Scanditronix-Wellh?fer NACP, PPC-05 and Roos PPC-40). Depending upon the cylindrical chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 1%-3%. Approximately 1% of this difference is due to the differences in the data given in the two protocols; another 1.1%-1.2% difference is due to the change of standards, from air-kerma to absorbed dose to water. For plane-parallel chambers, absorbed doses were determined by using two chamber calibration methods: (i) direct use of the ADCL calibration factors N(60Co)D,w and Nx for each chamber type in the appropriate equations for dose determination recommended by each protocol, and (ii) cross-calibration techniques in a high-energy electron beam, as recommended by TG-21, TG-39, and TG-51. Depending upon the plane-parallel chamber type used and the beam energy, the doses at dmax determined with TG-51 were higher than with TG-21 by about 0.7%-2.9% for the direct calibration procedures and by 0.8%-3.2% for the cross-calibration techniques. Measured values of photon-electron conversion kecal, for the NACP and Markus chambers were found to be 0.3% higher and 1.7% lower than the corresponding values given in TG-51. For the PPC-05 and PPC-40 (Roos) chamber types, the values of kecal were measured to be 0.889 and 0.893, respectively. The uncertainty for the entire calibration chain, starting from the calibration of the ionization chamber in the standards laboratory to the determination of absorbed dose to water in the user beam, has been analyzed for the two formalisms. For cylindrical chambers, the observed differences between the two protocols are within the estimated combined uncertainty of the ratios of absorbed doses for 6 and 8 MeV; however, at higher energies (10< or =E< or =18 MeV), the differences are larger than the estimated combined uncertainties by about 1%. For plane-parallel chambers, the observed differences are within the estimated combined uncertainties for the direct calibration technique; for the cross-calibration technique the differences are within the uncertainty estimates at low energies whereas they are comparable to the uncertainty estimates at higher energies. 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.     

Photon fluence perturbation correction factors for solid state detectors irradiated in kilovoltage photon beams

Dose perturbation correction factors, gamma(p), for LiF, CaF2 and Li2B4O7 solid state detectors have been determined using the EGS4 Monte Carlo code. Each detector was simulated in the form of a disc of diameter 3.61 mm and thickness 1 mm irradiated in a clinical kilovoltage photon beam at a depth of 1 cm in a water phantom. The perturbation correction factor gamma(p) is defined as the deviation of the absorbed dose ratio from the average mass energy absorption coefficient ratio of water to the detector material, (mu(en)/rho)med,det, which is evaluated assuming that the photon fluence spectrum in the medium and in the detector material are identical. We define another mass energy absorption coefficient ratio, (kappa(en)/rho)med,det, which is evaluated using the actual photon fluence spectrum in the medium and detector for LiF and CaF2 rather than assuming they are identical. (kappa(en)/rho)med,det predicts the average absorbed dose ratio of the medium to the detector material within 0.3%. When the difference in atomic number between the cavity and the phantom material is large then their photon fluence spectra will differ substantially resulting in a difference between (kappa(en)/rho)med,det and (mu(en)/rho)med,det. The value of gamma(p) calculated using (mu(en)/rho)med,det is up to 27% greater than unity for a cavity of CaF2 in 50 kV x-rays. When the atomic number of the medium and detector are similar, their photon fluence spectra are similar, and the difference between (kappa(en)/rho)med,det and (mu(en)/rho)med,det is small. For instance their difference for LiF is less than 2%. The average mass energy absorption coefficient ratio, (mu(en)(E)/rho)w,LiF, evaluated using the mean or representative energy, E, is up to 8% different from (mu(en)/rho)w,LiF. For calcium fluoride the difference between (mu(en)/rho)w,CaF2 and (mu(en)(E)/rho)w,CaF2 is up to 42% in the energy range studied.     

Effect of electron contamination on scatter correction factors for photon beam dosimetry.

Physical quantities for use in megavoltage photon beam dose calculations which are defined at the depth of maximum absorbed dose are sensitive to electron contamination and are difficult to measure and to calculate. Recently, formalisms have therefore been presented to assess the dose using collimator and phantom scatter correction factors, Sc and Sp, defined at a reference depth of 10 cm. The data can be obtained from measurements at that depth in a miniphantom and in a full scatter phantom. Equations are presented that show the relation between these quantities and corresponding quantities obtained from measurements at the depth of the dose maximum. It is shown that conversion of Sc and Sp determined at a 10 cm depth to quantities defined at the dose maximum such as (normalized) peak scatter factor, (normalized) tissue-air ratio, and vice versa is not possible without quantitative knowledge of the electron contamination. The difference in Sc at dmax resulting from this electron contamination compared with Sc values obtained at a depth of 10 cm in a miniphantom has been determined as a multiplication factor, Scel, for a number of photon beams of different accelerator types. It is shown that Scel may vary up to 5%. Because in the new formalisms output factors are defined at a reference depth of 10 cm, they do not require Scel data. The use of Sc and Sp values, defined at a 10 cm depth, combined with relative depth-dose data or tissue-phantom ratios is therefore recommended. For a transition period the use of the equations provided in this article and Scel data might be required, for instance, if treatment planning systems apply Sc data normalized at d(max).     

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.     

An empirical method for the determination of wall perturbation factors for parallel-plate chambers in high-energy electron beams

The calibration of ion chambers in high-energy electron beams in terms of absorbed dose to water at the National Physical Laboratory requires knowledge of the ratio of perturbation factors in graphite and water phantoms. During a review of data required for the NPL calibration procedure an empirical model was developed to calculate the perturbation due to the rear wall, pwall, of a well-guarded ion chamber in a high-energy electron beam. The overall uncertainty in this method is estimated to be 0.4%, which is the lowest value reported to date. The model reproduces measured data at the 0.1% level or better and indicates that the NACP ion chamber has a nonzero perturbation factor in electron beams due to backscatter from the rear wall. The effect is small (<0.5%) at high energies (R50>4 cm, E0>10 MeV) but becomes large at low energies-up to 1.4% at E0=4 MeV (R50=1.2 cm). The model indicates that there is a nonzero correction for the NACP chamber in both a graphite and water phantom and that material adjacent to the air cavity has a significant effect on the measured ionization. These values are consistent with previous measurements and recent Monte Carlo calculations. The model could be used in the design of ion chambers and in the estimation of corrections for non-homogeneous systems, especially in the absence of accurate Monte Carlo simulations.     

Photon energy dependence of the sensitivity of radiochromic film and comparison with silver halide film and LiF TLDs used for brachytherapy dosimetry

There is a new radiochromic film, a highly uniform, thin (100-microns) detector whose sensitive layer (6 microns thick) changes from colorless to blue by dye polymerization without processing, upon exposure to ionizing radiation. Because the dose gradients around brachytherapy sources are steep, the high spatial resolution offered by film dosimetry is an advantage over other detectors such as thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). This compares the photon energy dependence of the sensitivities of GafChromic film, silver halide verification film (Kodak X-Omat V Film), and lithium fluoride TLDs (Harshaw), over the photon energy range 28 keV to 1.7 MeV, which is of interest in brachytherapy. Sensitivity of the radiochromic film is observed to decrease by about 30% as effective photon energy decreases from 1710 keV (4-MV x rays) to 28 keV (60-kV x rays, 2-mm A1 filter). In contrast, the sensitivity of verification film increases by 980% and that of LiF TLDs increases by 41%. The variation of the sensitivity of radiochromic film with photon energy is considerably less than that for silver halide film and similar to that for LiF TLDs, but in the opposite direction. Radiochromic film, like LIF TLDs, does not exhibit the drastic sensitivity changes below 127 keV that silver halide film exhibits. Dose distribution in the immediate vicinity of a high activity (370 GBq) brachytherapy 192Ir source has been mapped using radiochromic film and is presented to illustrate the applicability of this new technology to brachytherapy dosimetry.     

Monte Carlo study of correction factors for the use of plastic phantoms in clinical electron dosimetry

In some recent dosimetry protocols, plastic is allowed as a phantom material for the determination of an absorbed dose to water in electron beams, especially for low energy with beam qualities R50 < 4 g/cm2. In electron dosimetry with plastic, a depth-scaling factor, cpl, and a chamber-dependent fluence correction factor, h(pl), are needed to convert the dose measured at a water-equivalent reference depth in plastic to a dose at a reference depth in water. The purpose of this study is to calculate correction factors for the use of plastic phantoms for clinical electron dosimetry using the EGSnrc Monte Carlo code system. RMI-457 and WE-211 were investigated as phantom materials. First the c(pl) values for plastic materials were calculated as a function of a half-value depth of maximum ionization, I50, in plastic. The c(pl) values for RMI-457 and WE-211 varied from 0.992 to 1.002 and from 0.971 to 0.979, respectively, in a range of nominal energies from 4 MeV to 18 MeV, and varied slightly as a function of I50 in plastic. Since h(pl) values depend on the wall correction factor, P(wall), of the chamber used, they are evaluated using a pure electron fluence correction factor, phi(pl)w, and P(wall)w and P(wall)pl, for a combination of water or plastic phantoms and plane-parallel ionization chambers (NACP-02, Markus and Roos). The phi(pl)w and P(wall) (P(wall)w and P(wall)pl) values were calculated as a function of the water-equivalent depth in plastic materials and at a reference depth as a function of R50 in water, respectively. The phi(pl)w values varied from 1.024 at 4 MeV to 1.013 at 18 MeV for RMI-457, and from 1.025 to 1.016 for WE-211. P(wall)w values for plane-parallel chambers showed values in the order of 1.5% to 2% larger than unity at 4 MeV, consistent with earlier results. The P(wall)pl values of RMI-457 and WE-211 were close to unity for all the energy beams. Finally, calculated h(pl) values of RMI-457 ranged from 1.009 to 1.005, from 1.010 to 1.003 and from 1.011 to 1.007 for NACP-02, Markus and Roos chambers, respectively, in the range of 4 MeV to 18 MeV, and the values of WE-211 were 1.010 to 1.004, 1.010 to 1.004 and 1.012 to 1.008, respectively. The calculated h(pl), values for the Markus chamber agreed within their combined uncertainty with the measured data.     

Computer-based collection of mammographic exposure data for quality assurance and dosimetry

PURPOSE: There is potentially more to quality assurance in mammography than the MQSA mandated tests. In this paper we describe a method of capturing individual mammogram technical parameters and the creation of new measures. These include the numbers of images required for each screening examination by technologist, median compression by technologist, and the radiation dose of the examination to the general population of patients. METHOD/MATERIALS: With this method we describe a semiautomated method of the collection of technical data from mammography exposures. The data that are automatically created by the mammography unit are saved on a computer for later analysis. The method was used on 2738 consecutive screening mammography examinations and 13 621 exposures from one machine. Data were obtained from November 1998 through December 1999. RESULTS: Using standard methods, the mean glandular dose (MGD) per exposure was 2.62 mGy (SD 1.2). The mean dose per bilateral screening examination was 6.53 mGy (SD 3.07), the median dose was 6.11 mGy, and the dose range was 1.13-34.23 mGy. Rhodium filtration was used for 18% of the exposures. The average and median breast thickness was 4.9 cm. The ACR phantom MGD for this machine was 2.44 mGy at 25 kVp, and 1.97 mGy at 26 kVp. The mean number of exposures for a bilateral mammogram was 4.9, and varied by a technologist from 4.7 to 5.2. The mean compression pressure varied by technologist from 13 to 30 lbs (58-134 N). CONCLUSIONS: The mean dose per mammogram is slightly greater than the ACR phantom dose at 25 kVp. Almost five exposures were necessary for a standard bilateral examination, and this varied by technologist. The compression used also varied by technologist. The semiautomated collection of technical data can aid in maintaining an effective mammography QA program.