Nada Tomic1, Chrystian Quintero1, Bruce R Whiting2, Saad Aldelaijan1, Hamed Bekerat1, LiHeng Liang1, François DeBlois1, Jan Seuntjens3, Slobodan Devic1. 1. Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec H3G 1A4, Canada and Department of Radiation Oncology, SMBD Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec H3T 1E2, Canada. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213. 3. Medical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montréal, Québec H3G 1A4, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors investigated the energy response of XR-QA2 GafChromic™ film over a broad energy range used in diagnostic radiology examinations. The authors also made an assessment of the most suitable functions for both reference and relative dose measurements. METHODS: Pieces of XR-QA2 film were irradiated to nine different values of air kerma in air, following reference calibration of a number of beam qualities ranging in HVLs from 0.16 to 8.25 mm Al, which corresponds to effective energy range from 12.7 keV to 56.3 keV. For each beam quality, the authors tested three functional forms (rational, linear exponential, and power) to assess the most suitable function by fitting the delivered air kerma in air as a function of film response in terms of reflectance change. The authors also introduced and tested a new parameter χ = netΔR·e(m netΔR) that linearizes the inherently nonlinear response of the film. RESULTS: The authors have found that in the energy range investigated, the response of the XR-QA2 based radiochromic film dosimetry system ranges from 0.222 to 0.420 in terms of netΔR at K(air)(air) = 8 cGy. For beam qualities commonly used in CT scanners (4.03-8.25 mm Al), the variation in film response (netΔR at K(air)(air) = 8 cGy) amounts to ± 5%, while variation in K(air)(air) amounts to ± 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Results of our investigation revealed that the use of XR-QA2 GafChromic™ film is accompanied by a rather pronounced energy dependent response for beam qualities used for x-ray based diagnostic imaging purposes. The authors also found that the most appropriate function for the reference radiochromic film dosimetry would be the power function, while for the relative dosimetry one may use the exponential response function that can be easily linearized.
PURPOSE: The authors investigated the energy response of XR-QA2 GafChromic™ film over a broad energy range used in diagnostic radiology examinations. The authors also made an assessment of the most suitable functions for both reference and relative dose measurements. METHODS: Pieces of XR-QA2 film were irradiated to nine different values of air kerma in air, following reference calibration of a number of beam qualities ranging in HVLs from 0.16 to 8.25 mm Al, which corresponds to effective energy range from 12.7 keV to 56.3 keV. For each beam quality, the authors tested three functional forms (rational, linear exponential, and power) to assess the most suitable function by fitting the delivered air kerma in air as a function of film response in terms of reflectance change. The authors also introduced and tested a new parameter χ = netΔR·e(m netΔR) that linearizes the inherently nonlinear response of the film. RESULTS: The authors have found that in the energy range investigated, the response of the XR-QA2 based radiochromic film dosimetry system ranges from 0.222 to 0.420 in terms of netΔR at K(air)(air) = 8 cGy. For beam qualities commonly used in CT scanners (4.03-8.25 mm Al), the variation in film response (netΔR at K(air)(air) = 8 cGy) amounts to ± 5%, while variation in K(air)(air) amounts to ± 14%. CONCLUSIONS: Results of our investigation revealed that the use of XR-QA2 GafChromic™ film is accompanied by a rather pronounced energy dependent response for beam qualities used for x-ray based diagnostic imaging purposes. The authors also found that the most appropriate function for the reference radiochromic film dosimetry would be the power function, while for the relative dosimetry one may use the exponential response function that can be easily linearized.
Authors: Bruce R Whiting; Andreea C Dohatcu; Joshua D Evans; David G Politte; Jeffrey F Williamson Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Pierluigi Casolaro; Luigi Campajola; Giovanni Breglio; Salvatore Buontempo; Marco Consales; Andrea Cusano; Antonello Cutolo; Francesco Di Capua; Francesco Fienga; Patrizio Vaiano Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 4.379