Literature DB >> 15191285

A calibration procedure for beam monitors in a scanned beam of heavy charged particles.

O Jäkel1, G H Hartmann, C P Karger, P Heeg, S Vatnitsky.   

Abstract

An international code of practice (CoP) for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water has recently been published by the IAEA [Technical Report Series No. 398, 2000] (TRS-398). This new CoP includes procedures for proton and heavy ion beams as well as all other beam qualities. In particular it defines reference conditions to which dose measurements should refer to. For proton and ion beams these conditions include dose measurements in the center of all possible modulated Bragg peaks. The recommended reference conditions in general are used also for the calibration of beam monitors. For a dynamic beam delivery system using beam scanning in combination with energy variation, like, e.g., at the German carbon ion radiotherapy facility, this calibration procedure is not appropriate. We have independently developed a different calibration procedure. Similar to the IAEA CoP this procedure is based on the measurement of absorbed dose to water. This is translated in terms of fluence which finally results in an energy-dependent calibration of the beam monitor in units of particle number per monitor unit, which is unique for all treatment fields. In contrast to the IAEA CoP, the reference depth is chosen to be very small. The procedure enables an accurate and reliable determination of calibration factors. In a second step, the calibration is verified by measurements of absorbed dose in various modulated Bragg peaks by comparing measured against calculated doses. The agreement between measured and calculated doses is usually better than 1% for homogeneous fields and the mean deviation for more inhomogeneous treatment fields, as they are used for patient treatments, is within 3%. It is proposed that the CoP in general, and in particular the IAEA TRS-398 should include explicit recommendations for the beam monitor calibration. These recommendations should then distinguish between systems using static and dynamic beams.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15191285     DOI: 10.1118/1.1689011

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


  5 in total

1.  Clinical characterization of a proton beam continuous uniform scanning system with dose layer stacking.

Authors:  J B Farr; A E Mascia; W C Hsi; C E Allgower; F Jesseph; A N Schreuder; M Wolanski; D F Nichiporov; V Anferov
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Physical and biological beam modeling for carbon beam scanning at Osaka Heavy Ion Therapy Center.

Authors:  Shinichiro Fujitaka; Yusuke Fujii; Hideaki Nihongi; Satoshi Nakayama; Masaaki Takashina; Noriaki Hamatani; Toshiro Tsubouchi; Masashi Yagi; Kazumasa Minami; Kazuhiko Ogawa; Junetsu Mizoe; Tatsuaki Kanai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-05-16       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system.

Authors:  Liyong Lin; Sheng Huang; Minglei Kang; Petri Hiltunen; Reynald Vanderstraeten; Jari Lindberg; Sami Siljamaki; Todd Wareing; Ian Davis; Allen Barnett; John McGhee; Charles B Simone; Timothy D Solberg; James E McDonough; Christopher Ainsley
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Technical Note: Defining cyclotron-based clinical scanning proton machines in a FLUKA Monte Carlo system.

Authors:  Francesca Fiorini; Niek Schreuder; Frank Van den Heuvel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Scanned Proton Beam Performance and Calibration of the Shanghai Advanced Proton Therapy Facility.

Authors:  Hang Shu; Chongxian Yin; Haiyang Zhang; Ming Liu; Manzhou Zhang; Liying Zhao; Kecheng Chu; Xiaolei Dai; Michael F Moyers
Journal:  MethodsX       Date:  2019-08-24
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.