The measurement of kappach factors for application with the IPEMB very low energy dosimetry protocol

Kilovoltage x-ray dosimetry--an experimental comparison between different dosimetry protocols

Kilovoltage dosimetry protocols by the IAEA (TRS-277 and TRS-398), DIN (6809), IPEMB (with addendum), AAPM (TG-61) and NCS (report 10) were compared experimentally in four clinical beams. The beams had acceleration potentials of 30, 80, 120 and 200 kV, with half-value layers ranging from 0.6 mm Al to 1 mm Cu. Dosimetric measurements were performed and data were collected under reference conditions as stipulated within each separate protocol under investigation. The Monte Carlo method was used to derive backscatter factors for the actual x-ray machine. In general, the agreement of the dosimetric data at the surface of a full-scatter water phantom obtained using the guidelines of the various protocols was fairly good, i.e. within 1-2%. However, the in-air calibration method using the IPEMB and AAPM TG-61 protocols yielded an absorbed dose about 7% lower than the IAEA TRS-398 protocol in the 120 kV beam. By replacing the backscatter factors given in the protocols with Monte Carlo calculated backscatter factors, the convergence between the protocols improved (within 4%). The internal consistency obtained for protocols supporting more than one geometry for dosimetry under reference conditions was better than 0.2% for the DIN protocol (120 kV beam), 2-3% for the AAPM TG-61 (120 and 200 kV beams) and about 2% for the IPEMB protocol (200 kV beam). The present study shows that the current-supported dosimetry protocols in the kilovoltage range were in fairly good agreement, and there were only a few exceptions of clinical significance.

Output factor measurements for a kilovoltage x-ray therapy unit

Output factors at the surface for treatment cones and lead cut-outs have been measured for a Pantak Therapax SXT 150 superficial therapy unit with x-ray beam qualities from 1 to 13 mm A1 HVL. A variety of phantom materials and two ionisation chambers were tested for their suitability in output factor and percentage depth dose measurement. Solid water proved a useful water-equivalent phantom material with discrepancies between measurements in water and solid water less than 2.3% for percentage depth dose and less than 0.6% for output factors. Larger measurement discrepancies were found for Plastic Water and Perspex. A PTW Markus chamber was found to compare well with a NE 2532/3 low energy chamber in percentage depth dose measurement, but discrepancies arose between the chambers in output factor measurements, up to 5% for small field sizes. Measurements indicated that the Markus chamber had an energy dependent response in the kilovoltage range, which could account for the discrepancy in output factor measurement.

Addendum to the IPEMB code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for x-rays below 300 kV generating potential (0.035 mm Al-4 mm Cu HVL)

This addendum to the code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for x-rays below 300 kV has recently been approved by the IPEM and introduces three main changes: (i) Due to a lack of available data the original code recommended a value of unity for k(ch) in the very-low-energy range (0.035-1.0 mm Al HVL). A single table of k(ch) values, ranging from 1.01 to 1.07, applicable to both designated chamber types is now presented. (ii) For medium-energy x-rays (0.5-4 mm Cu HVL) methods are given to determine the absorbed dose to water either at 2 cm depth or at the surface of a phantom depending on clinical needs. Determination of the dose at the phantom surface is derived from an in-air measurement and by extending the low-energy range up to 4 mm Cu HVL. Relevant backscatter factors and ratios of mass energy absorption coefficients are given in the addendum. (iii) Relative dosimetry: although not normally forming part of a dosimetry code of practice a brief review of the current literature on this topic has been added as an appendix. This encompasses advice on techniques for measuring depth doses, applicator factors for small field sizes, dose fall off with increasing SSD and choice of appropriate phantom materials and ionization chambers.

Application of diamond detectors to the dosimetry of 45 and 100 kvp therapy beams: comparison with a parallel-plate ionization chamber and Monte Carlo

Diamond detectors have become an increasingly popular dosimetric method where either high spatial resolution is required or where photon or electron spectra are likely to change with depth or field size. However, little work has been previously reported for superficial energies. This paper reports the response of a commercially available diamond detector (PTW Freiburg/IPTB Dubna) at 45 kVp (0.55 mm Al first HVL) and 100 kVp (2.3 mm Al first HVL) including dose and dose-rate linearity, percentage depth-dose and output factors as a function of applicator size. Comparisons are made with Br J. Radiol. supplement 25 data, measurements using a PTW parallel-plate chamber and Monte Carlo simulations based on spectra determined from transmission measurements in aluminium. Excellent agreement was obtained for percentage depth-dose curves between Monte Carlo and diamond after correcting for sublinearity of the dose-rate response and energy dependence of the diamond detector. However, significant differences were noted between diamond/Monte Carlo and the parallel-plate chamber, which is attributed to the perturbation caused by the polyethylene base of the chamber

Air kerma calibration factors and chamber correction values for PTW soft x-ray, NACP and Roos ionization chambers at very low x-ray energies

This paper evaluates the characteristics of ionization chambers for the measurement of absorbed dose to water using very low-energy x-rays. The values of the chamber correction factor, k(ch), used in the IPEMB 1996 code of practice for the UK secondary standard ionization chambers (PTW type M23342 and PTW type M23344), the Roos (PTW type 34001) and NACP electron chambers are derived. The responses in air of the small and large soft x-ray chambers (PTW type M23342 and PTW type M23344) and the NACP and Roos electron ionization chambers were compared. Besides the soft x-ray chambers, the NACP and Roos chambers can be used for very low-energy x-ray dosimetry provided that they are used in the restricted energy range for which their response does not change by more than 5%. The chamber correction factor was found by comparing the absorbed dose to water determined using the dosimetry protocol recommended for low-energy x-rays with that for very low-energy x-rays. The overlap energy range was extended using data from Grosswendt and Knight. Chamber correction factors given in this paper are chamber dependent, varying from 1.037 to 1.066 for a PTW type M23344 chamber, which is very different from a value of unity given in the IPEMB code. However, the values of k(ch) determined in this paper agree with those given in the DIN standard within experimental uncertainty. The authors recommend that the very low-energy section of the IPEMB code is amended to include the most up-to-date values of k(ch).