Literature DB >> 12033582

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

Fujio Araki1, H Dale Kubo.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12033582     DOI: 10.1118/1.1470208

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


  4 in total

1.  Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams.

Authors:  Malcolm McEwen; Larry DeWerd; Geoffrey Ibbott; David Followill; David W O Rogers; Stephen Seltzer; Jan Seuntjens
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.071

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.  Absolute dose determination in high-energy electron beams: Comparison of IAEA dosimetry protocols.

Authors:  S Sathiyan; M Ravikumar
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2008-07

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.