| Literature DB >> 35416306 |
Faustino Gómez1,2, Diego M Gonzalez-Castaño2, Nicolás Gómez Fernández2, Juan Pardo-Montero3,4, Andreas Schüller5, Alessia Gasparini6,7, Verdi Vanreusel6,7,8, Dirk Verellen6,7, Giuseppe Felici9, Rafael Kranzer10,11, Jose Paz-Martín1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional air ionization chambers (ICs) exhibit ion recombination correction factors that deviate substantially from unity when irradiated with dose per pulse magnitudes higher than those used in conventional radiotherapy. This fact makes these devices unsuitable for the dosimetric characterization of beams in ultra-high dose per pulse as used for FLASH radiotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: FLASH radiotherapy; ionization chamber; ultra-high dose rate
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35416306 PMCID: PMC9545838 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15668
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Phys ISSN: 0094-2405 Impact factor: 4.506
FIGURE 1UTIC1 prototype with a distance between electrodes of 0.27 mm
FIGURE 2MicroCT transverse image of UTIC2 prototype. The distance between the electrodes of this prototype is 220 m
FIGURE 3Experimental setup at SIT (Italy). The image on the left shows the ElectronFlash (linear accelerator) (1) using the 100 mm diameter applicator (2). On the right is the PMMA phantom (1) with the flash‐diamond (2) and the UTIC (3) prepared to be irradiated with the 35‐mm diameter applicator (4)
FIGURE 4Scheme of capacitor connection of 100 nF in the triaxial cable for use of a standard electrometer in UHDR pulsed beam
FIGURE 5Experimental setup at PTB (Germany). Both images show the water tank (1), the UTIC (2) in a waterproof bag mounted on a xyz positioning system outside water (left) and in the water at reference depth (right) and the beam exit window of the beamline of the electron linear accelerator (3)
FIGURE 6Simulation of the performance of an ionization chamber in UHDR. Panel (a) shows the curves of dose per pulse versus the distance between electrodes at which the chamber response deviation from linearity is 1% (charge collection efficiency of 99%) for different pulse duration from 0.5 s up to 4.5 s (assuming constant dose rate during the delivery). Panel (b) shows the relationship between dose per pulse and pulse duration for distances 0.22, 0.25, and 0.27 mm between electrodes at which the chamber response deviation from linearity is 1% (charge collection efficiency of 99%). Panel (c) shows the free electron fraction versus distance between electrodes for different dose per pulse delivered in a 4.5 s pulse. All the simulated results presented here are calculated at 300 V bias voltage and standard temperature, pressure, and relative humidity conditions (20 ° C, 1013.25 hPa, and 50% respectively)
FIGURE 7Charge versus voltage curve for a 0.22 mm UTIC irradiated with a continuous beam of 50 kV X‐ray and 1.5 mA current without added filtration and estimated dose rate of 4 Gy/s
FIGURE 8Results obtained at PTB in the water tank for the UTIC1 prototype at +250 V bias voltage. The experimental charge obtained versus dose per pulse is indicated by filled circles in the upper graph. The sensitivity obtained for this chamber was used to extrapolate the ideal linear response at high dose per pulse indicated by continuous line. Dashed line corresponds to expected results from simulation. Residuals expressed in terms of local relative differences are shown below were filled triangles correspond to experimental data and circles to simulation. For simulation, the volume recombination constant α was fixed to 0.42 m 3 s −1
FIGURE 9UTIC2 chamber response tested in the 9 MeV flash electron beam at SIT in a PMMA phantom. The UTIC2 absolute collected charge at +300 V (b) and −150 V (a) bias voltage is correlated with the flash‐diamond readout used as reference field detector. Solid line indicates the ideal linear chamber response while the dashed line corresponds to the expected performance from simulation. For simulation, the volume recombination constant α was fixed to 0.42 m 3 s −1