Naoki Kinoshita1,2, Hiroshi Oguchi1, Toshiki Adachi2, Hiroki Shioura3, Hirohiko Kimura3. 1. Department of Radiological and Medical Laboratory Sciences, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya-shi, Aichi-ken 461-8673, Japan. 2. Radiological Center, University of Fukui Hospital, Yoshida-gun, Fukui-ken 910-1193, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Fukui Hospital, Yoshida-gun, Fukui-ken 910-1193, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty in the calibration of high-energy radiation sources is dependent on user and equipment type. AIM: We evaluated the uncertainty in the positioning of a cylindrical chamber at a reference depth for reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams and the resulting uncertainty in the chamber readings for 6- and 10-MV photon beams. The aim was to investigate major contributions to the positioning uncertainty to reduce the uncertainty in calibration for external photon beam radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following phantoms were used: DoseView 1D, WP1D, 1D SCANNER, and QWP-07 as one-dimensional (1D) phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry; GRI-7632 as a phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve; and PTW type 41023 and QWP-04 as 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. The uncertainties were analyzed as per the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. RESULTS: The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings ranged from 0.22 to 0.35 mm and 0.12-0.25%, respectively, among the phantoms (using a coverage factor k = 1 in both cases). The major contributions to positioning uncertainty are: definition of the origin for phantoms among users for the 1D phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry, water level adjustment among users for the phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve, phantom window deformation, and non-water material of the window for the 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. CONCLUSION: The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings exhibited minor differences among the seven phantoms. The major components of these uncertainties differed among the phantom types investigated.
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty in the calibration of high-energy radiation sources is dependent on user and equipment type. AIM: We evaluated the uncertainty in the positioning of a cylindrical chamber at a reference depth for reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams and the resulting uncertainty in the chamber readings for 6- and 10-MV photon beams. The aim was to investigate major contributions to the positioning uncertainty to reduce the uncertainty in calibration for external photon beam radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following phantoms were used: DoseView 1D, WP1D, 1D SCANNER, and QWP-07 as one-dimensional (1D) phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry; GRI-7632 as a phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve; and PTW type 41023 and QWP-04 as 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. The uncertainties were analyzed as per the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. RESULTS: The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings ranged from 0.22 to 0.35 mm and 0.12-0.25%, respectively, among the phantoms (using a coverage factor k = 1 in both cases). The major contributions to positioning uncertainty are: definition of the origin for phantoms among users for the 1D phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry, water level adjustment among users for the phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve, phantom window deformation, and non-water material of the window for the 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. CONCLUSION: The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings exhibited minor differences among the seven phantoms. The major components of these uncertainties differed among the phantom types investigated.
Authors: Tracy Wright; Jessica E Lye; Ganesan Ramanathan; Peter D Harty; Chris Oliver; David V Webb; Duncan J Butler Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Malcolm McEwen; Larry DeWerd; Geoffrey Ibbott; David Followill; David W O Rogers; Stephen Seltzer; Jan Seuntjens Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; Ronald J Watts; Anders Ahnesjö; John Gibbons; X Allen Li; Jessica Lowenstein; Raj K Mitra; William E Simon; Timothy C Zhu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.071