Absorbed dose beam quality correction factors kappaQ for the NE2571 chamber in a 5 MV and a 10 MV photon beam

Monte Carlo calculation of perturbation correction factors for air-filled ionization chambers in clinical proton beams using TOPAS/GEANT

INTRODUCTION

Current dosimetry protocols for clinical protons using air-filled ionization chambers assume that the perturbation correction factor is equal to unity for all ionization chambers and proton energies. Since previous Monte Carlo based studies suggest that perturbation correction factors might be significantly different from unity this study aims to determine perturbation correction factors for six plane-parallel and four cylindrical ionization chambers in proton beams at clinical energies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The dose deposited in the air cavity of the ionization chambers was calculated with the help of the Monte Carlo code TOPAS/Geant4 while specific constructive details of the chambers were removed step by step. By comparing these dose values the individual perturbation correction factors p_cel, p_stem, p_sleeve, p_wall, p_cav⋅p_dis as well as the total perturbation correction factor p_Q were derived for typical clinical proton energies between 80 and 250MeV.

RESULTS

The total perturbation correction factor p_Q was smaller than unity for almost every ionization chamber and proton energy and in some cases significantly different from unity (deviation larger than 1%). The maximum deviation from unity was 2.0% for cylindrical and 1.5% for plane-parallel ionization chambers. Especially the factor p_wall was found to differ significantly from unity. It was shown that this is due to the fact that secondary particles, especially alpha particles and fragments, are scattered from the chamber wall into the air cavity resulting in an overresponse of the chamber.

CONCLUSION

Perturbation correction factors for ionization chambers in proton beams were calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. In contrast to the assumption of current dosimetry protocols the total perturbation correction factor p_Q can be significantly different from unity. Hence, beam quality correction factors [Formula: see text] that are calculated with the help of perturbation correction factors that are assumed to be unity come with a corresponding additional uncertainty.

Comparison of penh, fluka, and Geant4/topas for absorbed dose calculations in air cavities representing ionization chambers in high-energy photon and proton beams

PURPOSE

The purpose of this work is to analyze whether the Monte Carlo codes penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are suitable to calculate absorbed doses andf Q / f Q 0 ratios in therapeutic high-energy photon and proton beams.

METHODS

We used penh, fluka, geant4/topas, and egsnrc to calculate the absorbed dose to water in a reference water cavity and the absorbed dose to air in two air cavities representative of a plane-parallel and a cylindrical ionization chamber in a 1.25 MeV photon beam and a 150 MeV proton beam - egsnrc was only used for the photon beam calculations. The physics and transport settings in each code were adjusted to simulate the particle transport as detailed as reasonably possible. From these absorbed doses, f Q 0 factors, f Q factors, andf Q / f Q 0 ratios (which are the basis of Monte Carlo calculated beam quality correction factors k Q , Q 0 ) were calculated and compared between the codes. Additionally, we calculated the spectra of primary particles and secondary electrons in the reference water cavity, as well as the integrated depth-dose curve of 150 MeV protons in water.

RESULTS

The absorbed doses agreed within 1.4% or better between the individual codes for both the photon and proton simulations. The f Q 0 and f Q factors agreed within 0.5% or better for the individual codes for both beam qualities. The resultingf Q / f Q 0 ratios for 150 MeV protons agreed within 0.7% or better. For the 1.25 MeV photon beam, the spectra of photons and secondary electrons agreed almost perfectly. For the 150 MeV proton simulation, we observed differences in the spectra of secondary protons whereas the spectra of primary protons and low-energy delta electrons also agreed almost perfectly. The first 2 mm of the entrance channel of the 150 MeV proton Bragg curve agreed almost perfectly while for greater depths, the differences in the integrated dose were up to 1.5%.

CONCLUSION

penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are capable of calculating beam quality correction factors in proton beams. The differences in the f Q 0 and f Q factors between the codes are 0.5% at maximum. The differences in thef Q / f Q 0 ratios are 0.7% at maximum.

[Uncertainty of cross calibration-applied beam quality conversion factor for the Japan Society of Medical Physics 12]

The uncertainty of the beam quality conversion factor (k(Q,Q0)) of standard dosimetry of absorbed dose to water in external beam radiotherapy 12 (JSMP12) is determined by combining the uncertainty of each beam quality conversion factor calculated for each type of ionization chamber. However, there is no guarantee that ionization chambers of the same type have the same structure and thickness, so there may be individual variations. We evaluated the uncertainty of k(Q,Q0) for JSMP12 using an ionization chamber dosimeter and linear accelerator without a specific device or technique in consideration of the individual variation of ionization chambers and in clinical radiation field. The cross calibration formula was modified and the beam quality conversion factor for the experimental values [(k(Q,Q0))field] determined using the modified formula. It's uncertainty was calculated to be 1.9%. The differences between (k(Q,Q0))field of experimental values and k(Q,Q0) for Japan Society of Medical Physics 12 (JSMP12) were 0.73% and 0.88% for 6- and 10-MV photon beams, respectively, remaining within ± 1.9%. This showed k(Q,Q0) for JSMP12 to be consistent with (k(Q,Q0))field of experimental values within the estimated uncertainty range. Although inter-individual differences may be generated, even when the same type of ionized chamber is used, k(Q,Q0) for JSMP12 appears to be consistent within the estimated uncertainty range of (k(Q,Q0)field.

Experimental determination of beam quality factors,kQ, for two types of Farmer chamber in a 10 MV photon and a 175 MeV proton beam

Absorbed doses determined with a sealed water calorimeter operated at 4 degrees C are compared with the results obtained using ionization chambers and the IAEA TRS-398 code of practice in a 10 MV photon beam (TPR(20,10) = 0.734) and a 175 MeV proton beam (at a depth corresponding to the residual range, R(res) = 14.7 cm). Three NE 2571 and two FC65-G ionization chambers were calibrated in terms of absorbed-dose-to-water in (60)Co at the Swedish secondary standard dosimetry laboratory, directly traceable to the BIPM. In the photon beam quality, calorimetry was found to agree with ionometry within 0.3%, confirming the k(Q) values tabulated in TRS-398. In contrast, a 1.8% deviation was found in the proton beam at 6 g cm(-2) depth, suggesting that the TRS-398 tabulated k(Q) values for these two ionization chamber types are too high. Assuming no perturbation effect in the proton beam for the ionization chambers, a value for (w(air)/e)(Q) of 33.6 J C(-1) +/- 1.7% (k = 1) can be derived from these measurements. An analytical evaluation of the effect from non-elastic nuclear interactions in the ionization chamber wall indicates a perturbation effect of 0.6%. Including this estimated result in the proton beam would increase the determined (w(air)/e)(Q) value by the same amount.

Advances in the determination of absorbed dose to water in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams using ionization chambers

During the last two decades, absorbed dose to water in clinical photon and electron beams was determined using dosimetry protocols and codes of practice based on radiation metrology standards of air kerma. It is now recommended that clinical reference dosimetry be based on standards of absorbed dose to water. Newer protocols for the dosimetry of radiotherapy beams, based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water, N(D,w), in a standards laboratory's reference quality beam, have been published by several national or regional scientific societies and international organizations. Since the publication of these protocols multiple theoretical and experimental dosimetry comparisons between the various N(D,w) based recommendations, and between the N(D,w) and the former air kerma (NK) based protocols, have been published. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the dosimetry protocols based on these standards and of the intercomparisons of the different protocols published in the literature, discussing the reasons for the observed discrepancies between them. A summary of the various types of standards of absorbed dose to water, together with an analysis of the uncertainties along the various steps of the dosimetry chain for the two types of formalism, is also included. It is emphasized that the NK-N(D,air) and N(D,w) formalisms have very similar uncertainty when the same criteria are used for both procedures. Arguments are provided in support of the recommendation for a change in reference dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water.

Comparison between TG-51 and TRS-398: electron contamination effect on photon beam-quality specification

Two dosimetry protocols based on absorbed dose to water have recently been implemented: TG-51 and TRS-398. These protocols use different beam-quality indices: %dd(10)x and TPR20,10. The effect of electron contamination in measurements of %dd(10)x has been proposed as a disadvantage of the TG-51. For actual measurements of %dd(10)x in five clinical beams (Primus 6-18 MV, SL-75/5 6 MV, SL-18 6-15 MV) a purging magnet was employed to remove the electron contamination. Also, %dd(10)x was measured in the different ways described in TG-51 for high-energy beams: with a lead foil at 50 cm from the phantom surface, at 30 cm, and for open beam. Moreover, TPR20,10 was determined. Also, periodic quality-control measurements were used for comparing both quality indices and variation over time, but D20,10 was used instead of TPR20,10 and measurements in open beam for the %dd(10)x determination. Considering both protocols, S(w,air) and kQ were calculated in order to compare the results with the experimental data. Significant differences (0.3% for kQ) were only found for the two high-energy beams, but when the electron contamination is underestimated by TG-51, the difference in kQ is lower. Differences in the other cases and variations over time were less than 0.1%.

Which accelerator photon beams are "clinic-like" for reference dosimetry purposes?

Previous work has demonstrated that, for photon beam dosimetry, TPR10(20) is not an ideal beam quality specifier for all bremsstrahlung beams, especially for lightly filtered beams in some standards laboratories. This paper addresses the following questions: Is TPR10(20) an adequate beam quality specifier for all modern clinical therapy accelerators? When can nonclinical beams in standards laboratories be used to calibrate ion chambers or measure kQ factors as a function of TPR10(20)? Based on detailed Monte Carlo simulations of Varian, Siemens, Elekta, and GE (Saturn) accelerators one can conclude that TPR10(20) is an adequate beam quality specifier for all these machines in the sense that for a given value of TPR10(20), the value of stopping-power ratios is the same. It is shown that, for the heavily filtered beams used in standards laboratories, TPR10(20) is an adequate beam quality specifier. It is also demonstrated that, for a larger range of bremsstrahlung beams than previously, %dd(10)x is a good beam quality specifier for all clinical beams as well as the lightly and heavily filtered beams in some standards laboratories. A criterion, based on the measured values of TPR10(20) and %dd(10)x for the beam, is proposed for determining whether a nonclinical beam is well specified by TPR10(20). Agreement between calculations for specific accelerators and measured beam quality specifiers is shown to be good, but agreement with published data for a variety of clinical accelerators is not as good. Possible reasons for the discrepancy are discussed.

Experimental determination of beam quality conversion factors k(Q) in clinical photon beams using ferrous sulphate (Fricke) dosimetry

The implementation of protocols based on absorbed dose to water standards requires beam quality conversion factors, k(Q). Calculated values of k(Q) are available for ionization chambers used for reference dosimetry. Ideally, k(Q) should be experimentally determined at the same beam qualities as that of the user. In this work we measure k(Q) factors in clinical photon beams and compare them with calculated and measured values. Beam quality conversion factors are determined for clinical photon beams of nominal energies 4 MV, 6 MV, 15 MV, and 25 MV, for commonly used cylindrical ionization chambers. Twelve chambers of eight different types are used. For three of them, no experimental data have previously been available. The experimental procedure is based on measurements with ionization chambers and Fricke dosimetry in the reference beam (60Co gamma radiation) and in clinical linear accelerator beams. The k(Q) values determined in this work generally agree within 0.5% with previously reported experimental values both when %dd(10)x and TPR2010 are used for beam quality specification. The agreement with calculated data is generally within 0.5%, except for the 15 MV beam. For this beam the measured values are usually between 0.5% and 1% lower than the data taken from the TG-51 protocol or the TRS-398 code of practice. For three NE2571 chambers and three NE2581 chambers, the maximum observed deviation of individual k(Q) values is 0.2% and 0.4%, respectively.

Absorbed-dose beam quality conversion factors for cylindrical chambers in high energy photon beams

Recent working groups of the AAPM [Almond et al., Med. Phys. 26, 1847 (1999)] and the IAEA (Andreo et al., Draft V.7 of "An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water," IAEA, 2000) have described guidelines to base reference dosimetry of high energy photon beams on absorbed dose to water standards. In these protocols use is made of the absorbed-dose beam quality conversion factor, kQ which scales an absorbed-dose calibration factor at the reference quality 60Co to a quality Q, and which is calculated based on state-of-the-art ion chamber theory and data. In this paper we present the measurement and analysis of beam quality conversion factors kQ for cylindrical chambers in high-energy photon beams. At least three chambers of six different types were calibrated against the Canadian primary standard for absorbed dose based on a sealed water calorimeter at 60Co [TPR10(20)=0.572, %dd(10)x=58.4], 10 MV [TPR10(20)=0.682, %dd(10)x=69.6), 20 MV (TPR10(20)=0.758, %dd(10)x= 80.5] and 30 MV [TPR10(20) = 0.794, %dd(10)x= 88.4]. The uncertainty on the calorimetric determination of kQ for a single chamber is typically 0.36% and the overall 1sigma uncertainty on a set of chambers of the same type is typically 0.45%. The maximum deviation between a measured kQ and the TG-51 protocol value is 0.8%. The overall rms deviation between measurement and the TG-51 values, based on 20 chambers at the three energies, is 0.41%. When the effect of a 1 mm PMMA waterproofing sleeve is taken into account in the calculations, the maximum deviation is 1.1% and the overall rms deviation between measurement and calculation 0.48%. When the beam is specified using TPR10(20), and measurements are compared with kQ values calculated using the version of TG-21 with corrected formalism and data, differences are up to 1.6% when no sleeve corrections are taken into account. For the NE2571 and the NE2611A chamber types, for which the most literature data are available, using %dd(10)x, all published data show a spread of 0.4% and 0.6%, respectively, over the entire measurement range, compared to spreads of up to 1.1% for both chambers when the kQ values are expressed as a function of TPR10(20). For the PR06-C chamber no clear preference of beam quality specifier could be identified. When comparing the differences of our kQ measurements and calculations with an analysis in terms of air-kerma protocols with the same underlying calculations but expressed in terms of a compound conversion factor CQ, we observe that a system making use of absorbed-dose calibrations and calculated kQ values, is more accurate than a system based on air-kerma calibrations in combination with calculated CQ (rms deviation of 0.48% versus 0.67%, respectively).

Comparison of measured and Monte Carlo calculated dose distributions from the NRC linac

We have benchmarked photon beam simulations with the EGS4 user code BEAM [Rogers et al., Med. Phys. 22, 503-524 (1995)] by comparing calculated and measured relative ionization distributions in water from the 10 and 20 MV photon beams of the NRC linac. Unlike previous calculations, the incident electron energy is known independently to 1%, the entire extra-focal radiation is simulated, and electron contamination is accounted for. The full Monte Carlo simulation of the linac includes the electron exit window, target, flattening filter, monitor chambers, collimators, as well as the PMMA walls of the water phantom. Dose distributions are calculated using a modified version of the EGS4 user code DOSXYZ which additionally allows scoring of average energy and energy fluence in the phantom. Dose is converted to ionization by accounting for the (L/rho)water(air) variation in the phantom, calculated in an identical geometry for the realistic beams using a new EGS4 user code, SPRXYZ. The variation of (L/rho)water(air) with depth is a 1.25% correction at 10 MV and a 2% correction at 20 MV. At both energies, the calculated and the measured values of ionization on the central axis in the buildup region agree within 1% of maximum ionization relative to the ionization at 10 cm depth. The agreement is well within statistics elsewhere. The electron contamination contributes 0.35(+/- 0.02) to 1.37(+/- 0.03)% of the maximum dose in the buildup region at 10 MV and 0.26(+/- 0.03) to 3.14(+/- 0.07)% of the maximum dose at 20 MV. The penumbrae at 3 depths in each beam (in g/cm2), 1.99 (dmax, 10 MV only), 3.29 (dmax, 20 MV only), 9.79 and 19.79, agree with ionization chamber measurements to better than 1 mm. Possible causes for the discrepancy between calculations and measurements are analyzed and discussed in detail.

A comparison between calculated and experimental kQ photon beam quality correction factors

To validate the calculated values of kQ for high-energy photon beams given in the International Code of Practice for radiotherapy dosimetry based on water-absorbed-dose standards, a comparison with experimental values derived in standards laboratories and in clinical beams has been made. The study includes a compilation of experimental values for ionization chambers of the type NE2561/2611, NE2571, PTW30001 and PR06. The energy dependence of the G(Fe3+) ratio of high-energy x-rays to 60Co gamma-rays by Klassen et al is taken into account for all the Fricke-derived values. For three of the chamber types analysed, the comparison shows that the calculated values are a very good estimate of the average values of kQ in the entire range of photon beam qualities available for clinical use. For the NE2571 chamber type a difference which increases with energy between calculated and experimental kQ factors has been observed; however, the largest difference with a fit describing the entire set of experimental data is always smaller than 0.4%. It is concluded that if the recommendation of the Code of Practice for an individual calibration of the user's chamber at a range of photon beam qualities is not available, the use of calculated kQ factors will yield absorbed dose to water determinations accurate within the uncertainty limits of the majority of experimental data available. The good agreement between calculated and measured values, obtained for practically all the experimental data using TPR(20,10) as photon beam quality specifier, is not satisfied in some cases for two high-energy soft beams used at the Canadian NRC. There appears to be no justification for a change to a different photon beam quality specifier solely on the grounds that such a limited set of data is not described by the same distributions as the rest of the experimental data.

On the beam quality specification of high-energy photons for radiotherapy dosimetry

An overview of common photon beam quality specifiers used in radiotherapy dosimetry introduces a reasoned discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of TPR20,10 and PDD(10)x. It is shown that some of the potential advantages of PDD(10)x are also present in other well known beam quality specifiers such as d80. However, all PDD-based beam quality indices, including PDD(10)x, are subject to electron contamination and their determination is affected by practical limitations. The proposed filtration of contaminant electrons by Kosunen and Rogers [Med. Phys. 20, 1181-1188 (1993)] and by Li and Rogers [Med. Phys. 21, 791-798 (1994)] is questioned, not only with regard to the adequacy of using lead as an electron filter, but also in relation to its efficiency (if there were no contamination, restrictions for beam calibrations at dmax would be removed) and practical measurement. It is argued that (i) there is no unique beam quality specifier that works satisfactorily in all possible conditions, for the entire energy range of photon energies used in radiotherapy and all possible accelerators used in hospitals and in standards laboratories, and (ii) TPR20,10 remains to be the most appropriate specifier for clinical photon beams as it has less practical drawbacks than PDD-based quality indices. The final impact on clinical photon beam dosimetry resulting from the use of different photon beam quality specifiers, is that they are not expected to yield a significant change (i.e., more than 0.5% and in most cases well within 0.2%) in the absorbed dose to water in reference conditions for most clinical beams.

Correction factors and performance of a 4 degrees C sealed water calorimeter

In the past two decades, the water calorimetry technique for determination of absorbed dose to water in several types of radiation beams has moved significantly closer to being a recognized method. In this paper we summarize the constructional details of a 4 degrees C sealed water calorimeter currently in operation at the University of Gent. This sealed water (SW) calorimeter is of the Domen type and has been improved in several aspects compared with its original design. The relevant correction factors for heat transport and for field perturbation are described. Using relative response measurements in 60Co, we experimentally verified the relative heat defect for two distinct chemical systems, using two different detection vessel arrangements. The overall 1sigma uncertainty on the absorbed dose to water at 60Co based on this system amounts to 0.7%.