Jhonnatan Osorio1, Ralf Dreindl2, Loïc Grevillot2, Virgile Letellier2, Peter Kuess3, Antonio Carlino2, Alessio Elia2, Markus Stock2, Stanislav Vatnitsky2, Hugo Palmans4. 1. MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria. Electronic address: jhonnatan.osorio@medaustron.at. 2. MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria. 3. MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria; Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. 4. MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria; National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington TW11 0LW, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper presents the implementation and comparison of two independent methods of beam monitor calibration in terms of number of particles for scanned proton and carbon ion beams. METHODS: In the first method, called the single-layer method, dose-area-product to water (DAPw) is derived from the absorbed dose to water determined using a Roos-type plane-parallel ionization chamber in single-energy scanned beams. This is considered the reference method for the beam monitor calibration in the clinically relevant proton and carbon energy ranges. In the second method, called the single-spot method, DAPw of a single central spot is determined using a Bragg-peak (BP) type large-area plane-parallel ionization chamber. Emphasis is given to the detailed characterization of the ionization chambers used for the beam monitor calibration. For both methods a detailed uncertainty budget on the DAPw determination is provided as well as on the derivation of the number of particles. RESULTS: Both calibration methods agreed on average within 1.1% for protons and within 2.6% for carbon ions. The uncertainty on DAPw using single-layer beams is 2.1% for protons and 3.1% for carbon ions with major contributions from the available values of kQ and the average spot spacing in both lateral directions. The uncertainty using the single-spot method is 2.2% for protons and 3.2% for carbon ions with major contributions from the available values of kQ and the non-uniformity of the BP chamber response, which can lead to a correction of up-to 3.2%. For the number of particles, an additional dominant uncertainty component for the mean stopping power per incident proton (or the CEMA) needs to be added. CONCLUSION: The agreement between both methods enhances confidence in the beam monitor calibration and the estimated uncertainty. The single-layer method can be used as a reference and the single-spot method is an alternative that, when more accumulated knowledge and data on the method becomes available, can be used as a redundant dose monitor calibration method. This work, together with the overview of information from the literature provided here, is a first step towards comprehensive information on the single-spot method.
PURPOSE: This paper presents the implementation and comparison of two independent methods of beam monitor calibration in terms of number of particles for scanned proton and carbon ion beams. METHODS: In the first method, called the single-layer method, dose-area-product to water (DAPw) is derived from the absorbed dose to water determined using a Roos-type plane-parallel ionization chamber in single-energy scanned beams. This is considered the reference method for the beam monitor calibration in the clinically relevant proton and carbon energy ranges. In the second method, called the single-spot method, DAPw of a single central spot is determined using a Bragg-peak (BP) type large-area plane-parallel ionization chamber. Emphasis is given to the detailed characterization of the ionization chambers used for the beam monitor calibration. For both methods a detailed uncertainty budget on the DAPw determination is provided as well as on the derivation of the number of particles. RESULTS: Both calibration methods agreed on average within 1.1% for protons and within 2.6% for carbon ions. The uncertainty on DAPw using single-layer beams is 2.1% for protons and 3.1% for carbon ions with major contributions from the available values of kQ and the average spot spacing in both lateral directions. The uncertainty using the single-spot method is 2.2% for protons and 3.2% for carbon ions with major contributions from the available values of kQ and the non-uniformity of the BP chamber response, which can lead to a correction of up-to 3.2%. For the number of particles, an additional dominant uncertainty component for the mean stopping power per incident proton (or the CEMA) needs to be added. CONCLUSION: The agreement between both methods enhances confidence in the beam monitor calibration and the estimated uncertainty. The single-layer method can be used as a reference and the single-spot method is an alternative that, when more accumulated knowledge and data on the method becomes available, can be used as a redundant dose monitor calibration method. This work, together with the overview of information from the literature provided here, is a first step towards comprehensive information on the single-spot method.
Authors: Andreas F Resch; Fatima Padilla Cabal; Milovan Regodic; Wolfgang Lechner; Gerd Heilemann; Peter Kuess; Dietmar Georg; Hugo Palmans Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 4.506