Comparison of k Q factors measured with a water calorimeter in flattening filter free (FFF) and conventional flattening filter (cFF) photon beams

Direct determination of [Formula: see text] for cylindrical ionization chambers in a 6 MV 0.35 T MR-linac

To ensure accurate reference dosimetry with ionization chambers in magnetic resonance linear accelerators (MR-linacs), the influence of the magnetic field on the response of the ionization chambers must be considered. The most direct method considering the influence of magnetic fields in dosimetry is to apply an appropriate absorbed-dose-to-water primary standard. At PTB, a new water calorimeter has been designed which is capable to determine D_w,Q in an MR-linac. The new device allows the direct calibration of ionization chambers in terms of absorbed dose to water for MR-linac irradiation conditions. Hence, the correction factors [Formula: see text] can be determined which replace the current radiation-quality dependent correction factors [Formula: see text] for dosimetry in the presence of magnetic fields. In cooperation with Heidelberg University Hospital,[Formula: see text] factors were measured at the 6 MV 0.35 T Viewray MR-linac for different cylindrical ionization chambers with sensitive volumes ranging from 0.015 cm³ to 0.65 cm³. The chambers were placed both perpendicular and parallel in respect to the magnetic field. Standard uncertainties of about 0.5% were achieved.

Reference dose determination in 60Co and high-energy radiotherapy photon beams by using Farmer-type cylindrical ionization chambers - an experimental investigation

Ionization chamber dosimetry is predominantly used for determination of the absorbed dose to water in ⁶⁰Co and high-energy radiotherapy photon beams. The most widespread ionization chambers employed for absolute or reference dose determinations in reference conditions are the Farmer-type cylindrical ionization chambers. The Farmer-type ionization chambers have a variety of constructions and materials and their responses vary in the radiation beam. Clinical accelerators, in addition to conventional photon beams with flattening-filter, can also deliver flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon beams. The responses of five different Farmer-type cylindrical ionization chambers were experimentally examined with reference to absorbed dose determination in reference conditions when using the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Technical Reports Series no. 483 (TRS-483) and the IAEA TRS-398 dosimetry protocol in the present investigation. The irradiations were performed using ⁶⁰Co and megavoltage photon beams with 6 MV, 15 MV, 6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF nominal photon energies. The chamber calibrations were performed at different Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratories and are traceable to primary standards at different Primary Standard Dosimetry Laboratories. The chambers were also cross-calibrated at our laboratory using ⁶⁰Co γ-beam. The variation found in the data regarding the reference dose determination using the various Farmer-type chambers in the photon beams employed was about 1% at maximum. Thus, the selection of the ionization chamber in reference dose determinations may affect the outcomes. The differences in the absorbed dose values were similar in the conventional as well as in the FFF photon beams. For the FFF photon beams the absorbed dose computations were performed using the IAEA-AAPM TRS-483 dosimetry protocol. Two of the ionization chambers used had identical construction but different central electrodes, i.e. graphite versus aluminium. The results obtained using these two chambers show that, in the photon beams examined, the employed correction for the central electrode (p _cel ) regarding these two chambers is associated with an inaccuracy which is larger than the calculated uncertainty for this correction. The outcomes found in the present experimental investigation using the various ionization chambers also indicate possible inaccuracy in the employed beam quality correction factors (k _Q ) and imply the need for a revision of these factors.

Calculated beam quality correction factors for ionization chambers in MV photon beams

The beam quality correction factor, [Formula: see text], which corrects for the difference in the ionization chamber response between the reference and clinical beam quality, is an integral part of radiation therapy dosimetry. The uncertainty of [Formula: see text] is one of the most significant sources of uncertainty in the dose determination. To improve the accuracy of available [Formula: see text] data, four partners calculated [Formula: see text] factors for 10 ionization chamber models in linear accelerator beams with accelerator voltages ranging from 6 MV to 25 MV, including flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. The software used in the calculations were EGSnrc and PENELOPE, and the ICRU report 90 cross section data for water and graphite were included in the simulations. Volume averaging correction factors were calculated to correct for the dose averaging in the chamber cavities. A comparison calculation between partners showed a good agreement, as did comparison with literature. The [Formula: see text] values from TRS-398 were higher than our values for each chamber where data was available. The [Formula: see text] values for the FFF beams did not follow the same [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] relation as beams with flattening filter (values for 10 MV FFF beams were below fits made to other data on average by 0.3%), although our FFF sources were only for Varian linacs.

Technical Note: Consistency of PTW30013 and FC65-G ion chamber magnetic field correction factors

Purpose

Reference dosimetry in a strong magnetic field is made more complex due to (a) the change in dose deposition and (b) the change in sensitivity of the detector. Potentially it is also influenced by thin air layers, interfaces between media, relative orientations of field, chamber and radiation, and minor variations in ion chamber stem or electrode construction. The PTW30013 and IBA FC65‐G detectors are waterproof Farmer‐type ion chambers that are suitable for reference dosimetry. The magnetic field correction factors have previously been determined for these chamber types. The aim of this study was to assess the chamber‐to‐chamber variation and determine whether generic chamber type‐specific magnetic field correction factors can be applied for each of the PTW30013 and FC65‐G type ion chambers when they are oriented anti‐parallel (ǁ) to, or perpendicular (⊥) to, the magnetic field.

Methods

The experiment was conducted with 12 PTW30013 and 13 FC65‐G chambers. The magnetic field correction factors were measured using a practical method. In this study each chamber was cross‐calibrated against the local standard chamber twice; with and without magnetic field. Measurements with 1.5 T magnetic field were performed with the 7 MV FFF beam of the MRI‐linac. Measurements without magnetic field (0 T) were performed with the 6 MV conventional beam of an Elekta Agility linac. A prototype MR‐compatible PTW MP1 phantom was used along with a prototype holder that facilitated measurements with the chamber aligned 90° counter‐clockwise (⊥) and 180° (ǁ) to the direction of the magnetic field. A monitor chamber was also mounted on the holder and all measurements were normalized so that the effect of variations in the output of each linac was minimized. Measurements with the local standard chamber were repeated during the experiment to quantify the experimental uncertainty. Recombination was measured in the 6 MV beam. Beam quality correction factors were applied. Differences in recombination and beam quality between beams are constant within each chamber type. By comparing the results for the two cross calibrations the magnetic field correction factors can be determined for each chamber, and the variation within the chamber‐type determined.

Results

The magnetic field correction factors within both PTW30013 and FC65‐G chamber‐types were found to be very consistent, with observed standard deviations for the PTW30013 of 0.19% (ǁ) and 0.13% (⊥), and for the FC65‐G of 0.15% (ǁ) and 0.17% (⊥). These variations are comparable with the standard uncertainty (k = 1) of 0.24%.

Conclusion

The consistency of the results for the PTW30013 and FC65‐G chambers implies that it is not necessary to derive a new factor for every new PTW30013 or FC65‐G chamber. Values for each chamber‐type (with careful attention to beam energy, magnetic field strength and beam‐field‐chamber orientations) can be applied from the literature.