RESUMEN
Objective To study the difgerence between the IAEA code of practice TRS-Z77 and TRS-398 in the determination of the absorbed dose to water for high-energy photon beams using several cylindrical chambers. Methods For 6 different types of cylindrical chambers,the calibration factors ND,W,Q0 in terms of absorbed dose to water were calculated from the air exposure calibration factors N,,and were compared with the ND,W,Q0 measured in European standard laboratory. Accurate measurements were performed in Varian 6 MV photon beam using 6 cylindrical chambers according to TRS-277 and TRS-398.The beam quality correction factors kQ.Q0 as well as the water absorbed doses were compared.Results For the set of chambers,the difference between ND,W,Q0 computed from Nx and ND.-.Q0 obtained in European standard laboratory was 0.13％ ～ 1.30％.The difference of beam quality correction factors for TRS-277 and TRS-398 was 0.09％ ～0.45％.The distinction of the water absorbed doses obtained according to the two different protocols was 0.27％ ～ 1.40％,and was primarily due to their different calibration factors.Conclusions The discrepancy in absorbed doses determined according to two protocols using different cylindrical chambers is clinically acceptable.However,TRS-398 allows a more convenient localization of chambers,provides a more simple formulation,and offers the reduced uncertainty in the dosimetry of radiotherapy beams.
RESUMEN
The preceding DIN 6800-2 (1997) protocol has been revised by a German task group and its latest version was published in March 2008 as the national standard dosimetry protocol DIN 6800-2 (2008 March). Since then, in Germany the determination of absorbed dose to water for high-energy photon and electron beams has to be performed according to this new German dosimetry protocol. The IAEA Code of Practice TRS 398 (2000) and the AAPM TG-51 are the two main protocols applied internationally. The new German version has widely adapted the methodology and dosimetric data of TRS-398. This paper investigates systematically the DIN 6800-2 protocol and compares it with the procedures and results obtained by using the international protocols. The investigation was performed with 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams as well as with electron beams from 5 MeV to 21 MeV. While only cylindrical chambers were used for photon beams, the measurements of electron beams were performed by using cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers. It was found that the discrepancies in the determination of absorbed dose to water among the three protocols were 0.23% for photon beams and 1.2% for electron beams. The determination of water absorbed dose was also checked by a national audit procedure using TLDs. The comparison between the measurements following the DIN 6800-2 protocol and the TLD audit-procedure confirmed a difference of less than 2%. The advantage of the new German protocol DIN 6800-2 lies in the renouncement on the cross calibration procedure as well as its clear presentation of formulas and parameters. In the past, the different protocols evoluted differently from time to time. Fortunately today, a good convergence has been obtained in concepts and methods.
RESUMEN
The quality factors (kQ,Q0) were evaluated by appling the results recently studied for the effect of central electrode in TRS-398 protocol. The PTW-31010 and IBA-CC13 chambers were used in this study. The quality factors were calculated as a function of beam quality for high energy electron and photon beams and compared with data currently used in TRS-398 protocol. In the PTW-31010 chamber using aluminium electrode, appling the new central electrode collections, the quality factors were 0.4% and 0.9% higher than current TRS-398 data for high energy photon and electron beams respectively. In the IBA-CC13 chamber using C-552 electrode, there are no variations in quality factors compared to TRS-398 data currently used.
Asunto(s)
Electrodos , ElectronesRESUMEN
Although Gamma Knife irradiates much more radiation in a single session than conventional radiotherapy, there were only a few studies to measure absolute dose of a Gamma Knife. Especially, there is no report of application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 which requires to use a water phantom in radiation measurement to Gamma Knife. In this article, the authors reported results of the experiments to measure the absorbed dose to water of a Gamma Knife Model C using the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. The absorbed dose to water of a Gamma Knife model C was measured using a water phantom under conditions as close as possible to the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. The obtained results were compared with values measured using the plastic phantom provided by the Gamma Knife manufacturer. Two Capintec PR-05P mini-chambers and a PTW UNIDOS electrometer were used in measurements. The absorbed dose to water of a Gamma Knife model C inside the water phantom was 1.38% larger than that of the plastic phantom. The current protocol provided by the manufacturer has an intrinsic error stems from the fact that a plastic phantom is used instead of a water phantom. In conclusion, it is not possible to fully apply IAEA TRS-398 to measurement of absorbed dose of a Gamma Knife. Instead, it can be a practical choice to build a new protocol for Gamma Knife or to provide a conversion factor from a water phantom to the plastic phantom. The conversion factor can be obtained in one or two standard laboratories.