Fluence correction factors in plastic phantoms for clinical proton beams.

In recent codes of practice for reference dosimetry in clinical proton beams using ionization chambers, it is recommended to perform the measurement in a water phantom. However, in situations where the positioning accuracy is very critical, it could be more convenient to perform the measurement in a plastic phantom. In proton beams, a similar approach as in electron beams could be applied by introducing fluence correction factors in order to account for the differences in particle fluence distributions at equivalent depths in plastic and water. In this work, fluence correction factors as a function of depth were determined for proton beams with different energies using the Monte Carlo code PTRAN for PMMA and polystyrene with reference to water. The influence of non-elastic nuclear interaction cross sections was investigated. It was found that differences in proton fluence distributions are almost entirely due to differences in non-elastic nuclear interaction cross sections between the plastic materials and water. For proton beams with energies lower than 100 MeV, for which the contributions from non-elastic interactions become small compared to the total dose, the fluence corrections are smaller than 1%. For beams with energies above 200 MeV, depending on the cross sections dataset for non-elastic nuclear interactions, fluence corrections of 2-5% were found at the largest depths. The results could, with an acceptable accuracy, be represented as a correction per cm penetration of the beam, yielding values between 0.06% and 0.15% per cm for PMMA and 0.06% to 0.20% per cm for polystyrene. Experimental information on these correction factors was obtained from depth dose measurements in PMMA and water. The experiments were performed in 75 MeV and 191 MeV non-modulated and range-modulated proton beams. From the experiments, values ranging from 0.03% to 0.15% per cm were obtained. A decisive answer about which dataset for non-elastic nuclear interactions would result in a better representation of the measurements could not be given. We conclude that below 100 MeV, dosimetry could be performed in plastic phantoms without a dramatic loss of accuracy. On the other hand, in clinical high-energy proton beams, where accurate positioning in water is in general not an issue, substantial correction factors would be required for converting dose measurements in a plastic phantom to absorbed dose to water. It is therefore not advisable to perform absorbed dose measurements nor to measure depth dose distributions in a plastic phantom in high-energy proton beams.