Fujio Araki1, Takeshi Ohno1. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 4-24-1 Kuhonji, Chuo-ku, Kumamoto 862-0976, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the response of a radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RGD) in megavoltage photon and electron beams. METHODS: The RGD response was compared with ion chamber measurements for 4-18 MV photons and 6-20 MeV electrons in plastic water phantoms. The response was also calculated via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations with EGSnrc/egs_chamber and Cavity user-codes, respectively. In addition, the response of the RGD cavity was analyzed as a function of field sizes and depths according to Burlin's general cavity theory. The perturbation correction factor, PQ, in the RGD cavity was also estimated from MC simulations for photon and electron beams. RESULTS: The calculated and measured RGD energy response at reference conditions with a 10 × 10 cm(2) field and 10 cm depth in photons was lower by up to 2.5% with increasing energy. The variation in RGD response in the field size range of 5 × 5 cm(2) to 20 × 20 cm(2) was 3.9% and 0.7%, at 10 cm depth for 4 and 18 MV, respectively. The depth dependence of the RGD response was constant within 1% for energies above 6 MV but it increased by 2.6% and 1.6% for a large (20 × 20 cm(2)) field at 4 and 6 MV, respectively. The dose contributions from photon interactions (1 - d) in the RGD cavity, according to Burlin's cavity theory, decreased with increasing energy and decreasing field size. The variation in (1 - d) between field sizes became larger with increasing depth for the lower energies of 4 and 6 MV. PQ for the RGD cavity was almost constant between 0.96 and 0.97 at 10 MV energies and above. Meanwhile, PQ depends strongly on field size and depth for 4 and 6 MV photons. In electron beams, the RGD response at a reference depth, dref, varied by less than 1% over the electron energy range but was on average 4% lower than the response for 6 MV photons. CONCLUSIONS: The RGD response for photon beams depends on both (1 - d) and perturbation effects in the RGD cavity. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the energy dependence of RGD response by Burlin's theory and it is recommended to directly measure RGD response or use the MC-calculated RGD response, regarding the practical use. The response for electron beams decreased rapidly at a depth beyond dref for lower mean electron energies <3 MeV and in contrast PQ increased.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the response of a radiophotoluminescent glass dosimeter (RGD) in megavoltage photon and electron beams. METHODS: The RGD response was compared with ion chamber measurements for 4-18 MV photons and 6-20 MeV electrons in plastic water phantoms. The response was also calculated via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations with EGSnrc/egs_chamber and Cavity user-codes, respectively. In addition, the response of the RGD cavity was analyzed as a function of field sizes and depths according to Burlin's general cavity theory. The perturbation correction factor, PQ, in the RGD cavity was also estimated from MC simulations for photon and electron beams. RESULTS: The calculated and measured RGD energy response at reference conditions with a 10 × 10 cm(2) field and 10 cm depth in photons was lower by up to 2.5% with increasing energy. The variation in RGD response in the field size range of 5 × 5 cm(2) to 20 × 20 cm(2) was 3.9% and 0.7%, at 10 cm depth for 4 and 18 MV, respectively. The depth dependence of the RGD response was constant within 1% for energies above 6 MV but it increased by 2.6% and 1.6% for a large (20 × 20 cm(2)) field at 4 and 6 MV, respectively. The dose contributions from photon interactions (1 - d) in the RGD cavity, according to Burlin's cavity theory, decreased with increasing energy and decreasing field size. The variation in (1 - d) between field sizes became larger with increasing depth for the lower energies of 4 and 6 MV. PQ for the RGD cavity was almost constant between 0.96 and 0.97 at 10 MV energies and above. Meanwhile, PQ depends strongly on field size and depth for 4 and 6 MV photons. In electron beams, the RGD response at a reference depth, dref, varied by less than 1% over the electron energy range but was on average 4% lower than the response for 6 MV photons. CONCLUSIONS: The RGD response for photon beams depends on both (1 - d) and perturbation effects in the RGD cavity. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the energy dependence of RGD response by Burlin's theory and it is recommended to directly measure RGD response or use the MC-calculated RGD response, regarding the practical use. The response for electron beams decreased rapidly at a depth beyond dref for lower mean electron energies <3 MeV and in contrast PQ increased.