Literature DB >> 10757593

On the beam quality specification of high-energy photons for radiotherapy dosimetry.

P Andreo1.   

Abstract

An overview of common photon beam quality specifiers used in radiotherapy dosimetry introduces a reasoned discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of TPR20,10 and PDD(10)x. It is shown that some of the potential advantages of PDD(10)x are also present in other well known beam quality specifiers such as d80. However, all PDD-based beam quality indices, including PDD(10)x, are subject to electron contamination and their determination is affected by practical limitations. The proposed filtration of contaminant electrons by Kosunen and Rogers [Med. Phys. 20, 1181-1188 (1993)] and by Li and Rogers [Med. Phys. 21, 791-798 (1994)] is questioned, not only with regard to the adequacy of using lead as an electron filter, but also in relation to its efficiency (if there were no contamination, restrictions for beam calibrations at dmax would be removed) and practical measurement. It is argued that (i) there is no unique beam quality specifier that works satisfactorily in all possible conditions, for the entire energy range of photon energies used in radiotherapy and all possible accelerators used in hospitals and in standards laboratories, and (ii) TPR20,10 remains to be the most appropriate specifier for clinical photon beams as it has less practical drawbacks than PDD-based quality indices. The final impact on clinical photon beam dosimetry resulting from the use of different photon beam quality specifiers, is that they are not expected to yield a significant change (i.e., more than 0.5% and in most cases well within 0.2%) in the absorbed dose to water in reference conditions for most clinical beams.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10757593     DOI: 10.1118/1.598892

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  4 in total

1.  Polarity effect in commercial ionization chambers used in photon beams with small fields.

Authors:  Tetsunori Shimono; Kichiro Koshida; Hidekazu Nambu; Kosuke Matsubara; Hiroshi Takahashi; Hiroshi Okuda
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2008-12-18

2.  Comparison of AAPM Addendum to TG-51, IAEA TRS-398, and JSMP 12: Calibration of photon beams in water.

Authors:  Naoki Kinoshita; Hiroshi Oguchi; Yasuhiro Nishimoto; Toshiki Adachi; Hiroki Shioura; Hirohiko Kimura; Kunio Doi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Monitoring beam-quality constancy considering uncertainties associated with ionization chambers in Daily QA3 device.

Authors:  Su Chul Han; Jihun Kim; Min Cheol Han; Kyung Hwan Chang; Kwangwoo Park; Ho Jin Kim; Dong Wook Kim; Jin Sung Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Comparison of IPSM 1990 photon dosimetry code of practice with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51.

Authors:  Silvia Vargas Castrillón; Francisco Cutanda Henríquez
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 2.102

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.