PURPOSE: To apply the recent code of practice from the IAEA/AAPM, TRS 483, to helical tomotherapy (HT) for reference and relative dosimetry obtaining correction factors for the Exradin A1SL ionization chamber. METHODS: The beam quality correction factor for the A1SL chamber was obtained through three different approaches following TRS 483 concepts and compared with published values. The determination of the reference absolute dose for the machine-specific reference (msr) field was complemented with relative dosimetry through the determination of output factors of small fields using different detectors. The response of A1SL was compared with correction-free film results and corrected output factors of other detectors. RESULTS: A weighted mean beam quality correction factor of 0.9945± 0.0073 was obtained for the A1SL chamber which is in agreement with values reported in the literature. Output factors obtained with different detectors were in agreement, given the uncertainty level. Considering the film output factors as free of corrections, the average value for A1SL output factors corrections was 1.000 ± 0.007. CONCLUSIONS: The beam quality correction factors for the A1SL chamber obtained through the three different pathways recommended by TRS 483 agreed with each other and also with published values. The measurements from the A1SL chamber normalized to the msr field in HT can be taken as output factors for small clinical field sizes without further corrections.
PURPOSE: To apply the recent code of practice from the IAEA/AAPM, TRS 483, to helical tomotherapy (HT) for reference and relative dosimetry obtaining correction factors for the Exradin A1SL ionization chamber. METHODS: The beam quality correction factor for the A1SL chamber was obtained through three different approaches following TRS 483 concepts and compared with published values. The determination of the reference absolute dose for the machine-specific reference (msr) field was complemented with relative dosimetry through the determination of output factors of small fields using different detectors. The response of A1SL was compared with correction-free film results and corrected output factors of other detectors. RESULTS: A weighted mean beam quality correction factor of 0.9945± 0.0073 was obtained for the A1SL chamber which is in agreement with values reported in the literature. Output factors obtained with different detectors were in agreement, given the uncertainty level. Considering the film output factors as free of corrections, the average value for A1SL output factors corrections was 1.000 ± 0.007. CONCLUSIONS: The beam quality correction factors for the A1SL chamber obtained through the three different pathways recommended by TRS 483 agreed with each other and also with published values. The measurements from the A1SL chamber normalized to the msr field in HT can be taken as output factors for small clinical field sizes without further corrections.