PURPOSE: Experimental radiation dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), calibrated in a (60)Co or megavoltage (MV) photon beam, is recommended by AAPM TG-43U1for verification of Monte Carlo calculated absorbed doses around brachytherapy sources. However, it has been shown by Carlsson Tedgren et al. [Med. Phys. 38, 5539-5550 (2011)] that for TLDs of LiF:Mg,Ti, detector response was 4% higher in a (137)Cs beam than in a (60)Co one. The aim of this work was to investigate if similar over-response exists when measuring absorbed dose to water around (192)Ir sources, using LiF:Mg,Ti dosimeters calibrated in a 6 MV photon beam. METHODS: LiF dosimeters were calibrated to measure absorbed dose to water in a 6 MV photon beam and used to measure absorbed dose to water at distances of 3, 5, and 7 cm from a clinical high dose rate (HDR) (192)Ir source in a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom. Measured values were compared to values of absorbed dose to water calculated using a treatment planning system (TPS) including corrections for the difference in energy absorption properties between calibration quality and the quality in the users' (192)Ir beam and for the use of a PMMA phantom instead of the water phantom underlying dose calculations in the TPS. RESULTS: Measured absorbed doses to water around the (192)Ir source were overestimated by 5% compared to those calculated by the TPS. Corresponding absorbed doses to water measured in a previous work with lithium formate electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) dosimeters by Antonovic et al. [Med. Phys. 36, 2236-2247 (2009)], using the same irradiation setup and calibration procedure as in this work, were 2% lower than those calculated by the TPS. The results obtained in the measurements in this work and those obtained using the EPR lithium formate dosimeters were, within the expanded (k = 2) uncertainty, in agreement with the values derived by the TPS. The discrepancy between the results using LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs and the EPR lithium formate dosimeters was, however, statistically significant and in agreement with the difference in relative detector responses found for the two detector systems by Carlsson Tedgren et al. [Med. Phys. 38, 5539-5550 (2011)] and by Adolfsson et al. [Med. Phys. 37, 4946-4959 (2010)]. CONCLUSIONS: When calibrated in (60)Co or MV photon beams, correction for the linear energy transfer (LET) dependence of LiF:Mg,Ti detector response will be needed as to measure absorbed doses to water in a (192)Ir beam with highest accuracy. Such corrections will depend on the manufacturing process (MTS-N Poland or Harshaw TLD-100) and details of the annealing and read-out schemes used.
PURPOSE: Experimental radiation dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), calibrated in a (60)Co or megavoltage (MV) photon beam, is recommended by AAPM TG-43U1for verification of Monte Carlo calculated absorbed doses around brachytherapy sources. However, it has been shown by Carlsson Tedgren et al. [Med. Phys. 38, 5539-5550 (2011)] that for TLDs of LiF:Mg,Ti, detector response was 4% higher in a (137)Cs beam than in a (60)Co one. The aim of this work was to investigate if similar over-response exists when measuring absorbed dose to water around (192)Ir sources, using LiF:Mg,Ti dosimeters calibrated in a 6 MV photon beam. METHODS:LiF dosimeters were calibrated to measure absorbed dose to water in a 6 MV photon beam and used to measure absorbed dose to water at distances of 3, 5, and 7 cm from a clinical high dose rate (HDR) (192)Ir source in a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom. Measured values were compared to values of absorbed dose to water calculated using a treatment planning system (TPS) including corrections for the difference in energy absorption properties between calibration quality and the quality in the users' (192)Ir beam and for the use of a PMMA phantom instead of the water phantom underlying dose calculations in the TPS. RESULTS: Measured absorbed doses to water around the (192)Ir source were overestimated by 5% compared to those calculated by the TPS. Corresponding absorbed doses to water measured in a previous work with lithium formate electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) dosimeters by Antonovic et al. [Med. Phys. 36, 2236-2247 (2009)], using the same irradiation setup and calibration procedure as in this work, were 2% lower than those calculated by the TPS. The results obtained in the measurements in this work and those obtained using the EPR lithium formate dosimeters were, within the expanded (k = 2) uncertainty, in agreement with the values derived by the TPS. The discrepancy between the results using LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs and the EPR lithium formate dosimeters was, however, statistically significant and in agreement with the difference in relative detector responses found for the two detector systems by Carlsson Tedgren et al. [Med. Phys. 38, 5539-5550 (2011)] and by Adolfsson et al. [Med. Phys. 37, 4946-4959 (2010)]. CONCLUSIONS: When calibrated in (60)Co or MV photon beams, correction for the linear energy transfer (LET) dependence of LiF:Mg,Ti detector response will be needed as to measure absorbed doses to water in a (192)Ir beam with highest accuracy. Such corrections will depend on the manufacturing process (MTS-N Poland or Harshaw TLD-100) and details of the annealing and read-out schemes used.
Authors: Annette Haworth; Duncan J Butler; Lisa Wilfert; Martin A Ebert; Stephen P Todd; Anna J M Hayton; Tomas Kron Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 2.102