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

Clinical reference dosimetry for the 0.5 T inline rotating biplanar Linac-MR

BACKGROUND

The world's first clinical 0.5 T inline rotating biplanar Linac-MR system is commissioned for clinical use. For reference dosimetry, unique features to device, including an SAD = 120 cm, bore clearance of 60 cm × 110 cm, as well as 0.5 T inline magnetic field, provide some challenges to applying a standard dosimetry protocol (i.e., TG-51).

PURPOSE

In this work, we propose a simple and practical clinical reference dosimetry protocol for the 0.5T biplanar Linac-MR and validated its results.

METHODS

Our dosimetry protocol for this system is as follows: tissue phantom ratios at 20 and 10 cm are first measured and converted into %dd10x beam quality specifier using equations provided and Kalach and Rogers. The converted %dd10x is used to determine the ion chamber correction factor, using the equations in the TG-51 addendum for the Exradin A12 farmer chamber used, which is cross-calibrated with one calibrated at a standards laboratory. For a 0.5 T parallel field, magnetic field effect on chamber response is assumed to have no effect and is not explicitly corrected for. Once the ion chamber correction factor for a non-standard SAD (kQ,msr) is determined, TG-51 is performed to obtain dose at a depth of 10 cm at SAD = 120 cm. The dosimetry protocol is repeated with the magnetic field ramped down. To validate our dosimetry protocol, Monte Carlo (EGSnrc) simulations are performed to confirm the determined kQ,msr values. MC Simulations and magnetic Field On versus Field Off measurements are performed to confirm that the magnetic field has no effect. To validate our overall dosimetry protocol, external dose audits, based on optical simulated luminescent dosimeters, thermal luminescent dosimeters, and alanine dosimeters are performed on the 0.5 T Linac-MR system.

RESULTS

Our EGSnrc results confirm our protocol-determined kQ,msr values, as well as our assumptions about magnetic field effects (kB = 1) within statistical uncertainty for the A-12 chamber. Our external dosimetry procedures also validated our overall dosimetry protocol for the 0.5 T biplanar Linac-MR hybrid. Ramping down the magnetic field has resulted in a dosimetric difference of 0.1%, well within experimental uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

With the 0.5 T parallel magnetic field having minimal effect on the ion chamber response, a TPR20,10 approach to determine beam quality provides an accurate method to perform clinical dosimetry for the 0.5 T biplanar Linac-MR.

Monitoring beam-quality constancy considering uncertainties associated with ionization chambers in Daily QA3 device

This study evaluates the changes occurring in the X-ray energy of a linear accelerator (LINAC) using a Daily QA3 detector system. This is accomplished by comparing the Daily QA3 results against those obtained using a water phantom. The X-energy levels of a LINAC were monitored over a duration of 1 month using the Daily QA3 system. Moreover, to account for the uncertainty, the reproducibility of the Daily QA3 ionization-chamber results was assessed by performing repeated measurements (12 per day). Subsequently, the energy-monitoring results were compared with the energy-change results calculated using the water-phantom percentage depth dose (PDD) ratio. As observed, the 6- and 10-MV beams experienced average daily energy-level changes of (-0.30 ± 0.32)% and (0.05 ± 0.38)%, respectively, during repeated measurements. The corresponding energy changes equaled (-0.30 ± 0.55)% and (-0.05 ± 0.48)%, respectively, when considering the measurement uncertainty. The Daily QA3 measurements performed at 6 MV demonstrated a variation of (2.15 ± 0.81)% (i.e., up to 3%). Meanwhile, the corresponding measurements performed using a water phantom demonstrated an increase in the PDD ratio from 0.577 to 0.580 (i.e., approximately 0.5%). At 10 MV, the energy variation in the Daily QA3 measurements equaled (-0.41 ± 0.82)% (i.e., within 1.5%), whereas the corresponding water phantom PDD ratio remained constant at 0.626. These results reveal that the Daily QA3 system can be used to monitor small energy changes occurring within radiotherapy machines. This demonstrates its potential for use as a secondary system for monitoring energy changes as part of the daily quality-assurance workflow.

Photosynthetic Regulation Under Salt Stress and Salt-Tolerance Mechanism of Sweet Sorghum

Sweet sorghum is a C4 crop with the characteristic of fast-growth and high-yields. It is a good source for food, feed, fiber, and fuel. On saline land, sweet sorghum can not only survive, but increase its sugar content. Therefore, it is regarded as a potential source for identifying salt-related genes. Here, we review the physiological and biochemical responses of sweet sorghum to salt stress, such as photosynthesis, sucrose synthesis, hormonal regulation, and ion homeostasis, as well as their potential salt-resistance mechanisms. The major advantages of salt-tolerant sweet sorghum include: 1) improving the Na+ exclusion ability to maintain ion homeostasis in roots under salt-stress conditions, which ensures a relatively low Na+ concentration in shoots; 2) maintaining a high sugar content in shoots under salt-stress conditions, by protecting the structures of photosystems, enhancing photosynthetic performance and sucrose synthetase activity, as well as inhibiting sucrose degradation. To study the regulatory mechanism of such genes will provide opportunities for increasing the salt tolerance of sweet sorghum by breeding and genetic engineering.

Comparison of AAPM Addendum to TG-51, IAEA TRS-398, and JSMP 12: Calibration of photon beams in water

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Working Group on TG-51 published an Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol (Addendum to TG-51) in 2014, and the Japan Society of Medical Physics (JSMP) published a new dosimetry protocol JSMP 12 in 2012. In this study, we compared the absorbed dose to water determined at the reference depth for high-energy photon beams following the recommendations given in AAPM TG-51 and the Addendum to TG-51, IAEA TRS-398, and JSMP 12. This study was performed using measurements with flattened photon beams with nominal energies of 6 and 10 MV. Three widely used ionization chambers with different compositions, Exradin A12, PTW 30013, and IBA FC65-P, were employed. Fully corrected charge readings obtained for the three chambers according to AAPM TG-51 and the Addendum to TG-51, which included the correction for the radiation beam profile (Prp ), showed variations of 0.2% and 0.3% at 6 and 10 MV, respectively, from the readings corresponding to IAEA TRS-398 and JSMP 12. The values for the beam quality conversion factor kQ obtained according to the three protocols agreed within 0.5%; the only exception was a 0.6% difference between the results obtained at 10 MV for Exradin A12 according to IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 and the Addendum to TG-51. Consequently, the values for the absorbed dose to water obtained for the three protocols agreed within 0.4%; the only exception was a 0.6% difference between the values obtained at 10 MV for PTW 30013 according to AAPM TG-51 and the Addendum to TG-51, and JSMP 12. While the difference in the absorbed dose to water determined by the three protocols depends on the kQ and Prp values, the absorbed dose to water obtained according to the three protocols agrees within the relative uncertainties for the three protocols.

Medical linear accelerator mounted mini-beam collimator: design, fabrication and dosimetric characterization

The goal of this work was to design, build and experimentally characterize a linear accelerator mounted mini-beam collimator for use at a nominal 6 MV beam energy. Monte Carlo simulation was used in the design and dosimetric characterization of a compact mini-beam collimator assembly mounted to a medical linear accelerator. After fabrication, experimental mini-beam dose profiles and central axis relative output were measured and the results used to validate the simulation data. The simulation data was then used to establish traceability back to an established dosimetric code of practice. The Monte Carlo simulation work revealed that changes in collimator blade width have a greater influence on the valley-to-peak dose ratio than do changes in blade height. There was good agreement between the modeled and measured profile data, with the exception of small differences on either side of the central peak dose. These differences were found to be systematic across all depths and result from limitations associated with the collimator fabrication. Experimental mini-beam relative output and simulation data agreed to better than ± 2.0%, which is well within the level of uncertainty required for dosimetric traceability of non-standard field geometries. A mini-beam collimator has now been designed, built and experimentally characterized for use with a commercial linear accelerator operated at a nominal 6 MV beam energy.

Comparison of IPSM 1990 photon dosimetry code of practice with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51

Several codes of practice for photon dosimetry are currently used around the world, supported by different organizations. A comparison of IPSM 1990 with both IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 has been performed. All three protocols are based on the calibration of ionization chambers in terms of standards of absorbed dose to water, as it is the case with other modern codes of practice. This comparison has been carried out for photon beams of nominal energies: 4 MV, 6 MV, 8 MV, 10 MV and 18 MV. An NE 2571 graphite ionization chamber was used in this study, cross-calibrated against an NE 2611A Secondary Standard, calibrated in the National Physical Laboratory (NPL). Absolute dose in reference conditions was obtained using each of these three protocols including: beam quality indices, beam quality conversion factors both theoretical and NPL experimental ones, correction factors for influence quantities and absolute dose measurements. Each protocol recommendations have been strictly followed. Uncertainties have been obtained according to the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Absorbed dose obtained according to all three protocols agree within experimental uncertainty. The largest difference between absolute dose results for two protocols is obtained for the highest energy: 0.7% between IPSM 1990 and IAEA TRS-398 using theoretical beam quality conversion factors.

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%.

Ionization chamber dosimetry of small photon fields: a Monte Carlo study on stopping-power ratios for radiosurgery and IMRT beams

Absolute dosimetry with ionization chambers of the narrow photon fields used in stereotactic techniques and IMRT beamlets is constrained by lack of electron equilibrium in the radiation field. It is questionable that stopping-power ratio in dosimetry protocols, obtained for broad photon beams and quasi-electron equilibrium conditions, can be used in the dosimetry of narrow fields while keeping the uncertainty at the same level as for the broad beams used in accelerator calibrations. Monte Carlo simulations have been performed for two 6 MV clinical accelerators (Elekta SL-18 and Siemens Mevatron Primus), equipped with radiosurgery applicators and MLC. Narrow circular and Z-shaped on-axis and off-axis fields, as well as broad IMRT configured beams, have been simulated together with reference 10 x 10 cm2 beams. Phase-space data have been used to generate 3D dose distributions which have been compared satisfactorily with experimental profiles (ion chamber, diodes and film). Photon and electron spectra at various depths in water have been calculated, followed by Spencer-Attix (delta = 10 keV) stopping-power ratio calculations which have been compared to those used in the IAEA TRS-398 code of practice. For water/air and PMMA/air stopping-power ratios, agreements within 0.1% have been obtained for the 10 x 10 cm2 fields. For radiosurgery applicators and narrow MLC beams, the calculated s(w,air) values agree with the reference within +/-0.3%, well within the estimated standard uncertainty of the reference stopping-power ratios (0.5%). Ionization chamber dosimetry of narrow beams at the photon qualities used in this work (6 MV) can therefore be based on stopping-power ratios data in dosimetry protocols. For a modulated 6 MV broad beam used in clinical IMRT, s(w,air) agrees within 0.1% with the value for 10 x 10 cm2, confirming that at low energies IMRT absolute dosimetry can also be based on data for open reference fields. At higher energies (24 MV) the difference in s(w,air) was up to 1.1%, indicating that the use of protocol data for narrow beams in such cases is less accurate than at low energies, and detailed calculations of the dosimetry parameters involved should be performed if similar accuracy to that of 6 MV is sought.

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.

Absorbed dose to water based dosimetry versus air kerma based dosimetry for high-energy photon beams: an experimental study

In recent years, a change has been proposed from air kerma based reference dosimetry to absorbed dose based reference dosimetry for all radiotherapy beams of ionizing radiation. In this paper, a dosimetry study is presented in which absorbed dose based dosimetry using recently developed formalisms was compared with air kerma based dosimetry using older formalisms. Three ionization chambers of each of three different types were calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water and air kerma and sent to five hospitals. There, reference dosimetry with all the chambers was performed in a total of eight high-energy clinical photon beams. The selected chamber types were the NE2571, the PTW-30004 and the Wellhöfer-FC65G (previously Wellhöfer-IC70). Having a graphite wall, they exhibit a stable volume and the presence of an aluminium electrode ensures the robustness of these chambers. The data were analysed with the most important recommendations for clinical dosimetry: IAEA TRS-398, AAPM TG-51, IAEA TRS-277, NCS report-2 (presently recommended in Belgium) and AAPM TG-21. The necessary conversion factors were taken from those protocols, or calculated using the data in the different protocols if data for a chamber type are lacking. Polarity corrections were within 0.1% for all chambers in all beams. Recombination corrections were consistent with theoretical predictions, did not vary within a chamber type and only slightly between different chamber types. The maximum chamber-to-chamber variations of the dose obtained with the different formalisms within the same chamber type were between 0.2% and 0.6% for the NE2571, between 0.2% and 0.6% for the PTW-30004 and 0.1% and 0.3% for the Wellhöfer-FC65G for the different beams. The absorbed dose results for the NE2571 and Wellhöfer-FC65G chambers were in good agreement for all beams and all formalisms. The PTW-30004 chambers gave a small but systematically higher result compared to the result for the NE2571 chambers (on the average 0.1% for IAEA TRS-277, 0.3% for NCS report-2 and AAPM TG-21 and 0.4% for IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51). Within the air kerma based protocols, the results obtained with the TG-21 protocol were 0.4-0.8% higher mainly due to the differences in the data used. Both absorbed dose to water based formalisms resulted in consistent values within 0.3%. The change from old to new formalisms is discussed together with the traceability of calibration factors obtained at the primary absorbed dose and air kerma standards in the reference beams (60Co). For the particular situation in Belgium (calibrations at the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry of Ghent) the change amounts to 0.1-0.6%. This is similar to the magnitude of the change determined in other countries.

Comparison of the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 absorbed dose to water protocols in the dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA TRS-398) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM TG-51) have published new protocols for the calibration of radiotherapy beams. These protocols are based on the use of an ionization chamber calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water in a standards laboratory's reference quality beam. This paper compares the recommendations of the two protocols in two ways: (i) by analysing in detail the differences in the basic data included in the two protocols for photon and electron beam dosimetry and (ii) by performing measurements in clinical photon and electron beams and determining the absorbed dose to water following the recommendations of the two protocols. Measurements were made with two Farmer-type ionization chambers and three plane-parallel ionization chamber types in 6, 18 and 25 MV photon beams and 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18 MeV electron beams. The Farmer-type chambers used were NE 2571 and PTW 30001, and the plane-parallel chambers were a Scanditronix-Wellhöfer NACP and Roos, and a PTW Markus chamber. For photon beams, the measured ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw ranged between 0.997 and 1.001, with a mean value of 0.999. The ratios for the beam quality correction factors kQ were found to agree to within about +/-0.2% despite significant differences in the method of beam quality specification for photon beams and in the basic data entering into kQ. For electron beams, dose measurements were made using direct N(D,w) calibrations of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers in a 60Co gamma-ray beam, as well as cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers in a high-energy electron beam. For the direct N(D,w) calibrations the ratios TG-51/TRS-398 of absorbed dose to water Dw were found to lie between 0.994 and 1.018 depending upon the chamber and electron beam energy used, with mean values of 0.996, 1.006, and 1.017, respectively, for the cylindrical, well-guarded and not well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. The Dw ratios measured for the cross-calibration procedures varied between 0.993 and 0.997. The largest discrepancies for electron beams between the two protocols arise from the use of different data for the perturbation correction factors p(wall) and p(dis) of cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, all in 60Co. A detailed analysis of the reasons for the discrepancies is made which includes comparing the formalisms, correction factors and the quantities in the two protocols.

Determination of absorbed dose for photon and electron beams from a linear accelerator by comparing various protocols on different phantoms

Protocols developed for high-energy dosimetry IAEA (Technical Reports Series No. 277, 1997), AAPM (Med. Phys. 10 (1983) 741: Med. Phys. 18 (1991) 73: Med. Phys. 21 (1994) 1251), IPEMB (Phys. Med. Biol. 41 (1996) 2557), and HPA (Phys. Med. Biol. 28 (1983) 1097) have continued to enhance precision in dose measurements and the optimization of radiotherapy procedures. While recent dosimetry protocols, including those due to the IAEA and IPEMB, have made a number of improvements compared with previous protocols, it is further desirable to develop absolute dosimetry methods of dose measurements. Measurements based on careful implementation of procedures contained within the various protocols have been carried out in an effort to determine the extent to which discrepancies exist among the protocols. Dose in water at dmax was measured using cylindrical and parallel-plate ionization chambers for 6 MV photon beams and 5 and 12 MeV electron beams. Results obtained from the use of the AAPM and HPA protocols for 6 MV photon beams were found to be 0.9% larger and 0.1% smaller, respectively, than those measured following the IAEA protocol. Calibration dose measurements for 5 and 12 MeV electron beams in water phantoms were found to agree to within 1%, this being well within recommendations from the ICRU and other sources regarding the accuracy of dose delivery.

Comparison of dosimetric standards of Canada and France for photons at 60Co and higher energies

We report the results of a comparison of the dosimetric standards of Canada and France for photon beams at 60Co and a few higher energies. The present primary standard of absorbed dose to water for NRC, Canada is based on measurements made with a sealed water calorimeter. The corresponding standard of the LNHB, France is based on measurements made with a graphite calorimeter at 60Co energy and transferred to absorbed dose to water for 60Co and higher-energy photon beams using both ion chambers and Fricke dosemeters as transfer instruments. To make this comparison, we used three graphite-walled NE2571 Farmer chambers. The absorbed dose to water determined by the LNHB was greater than that determined by NRC by 0.20% at 60Co energy. This difference is not significant given the uncertainties on the standards. In order to do the comparison for higher-energy photons, we interpolated the NRC data set at the beam qualities used at the LNHB. When %dd(10)x is used as the method of specifying beam quality, the determination of absorbed dose to water by the LNHB is about 0.2% greater than that determined by NRC and consistent with the results at 60Co. However, when using TPR20,10 as the beam quality specifier, the LNHB determination is greater than the NRC's determination by 0.8% and 1.2% at 12 and 20 MV respectively. This discrepancy, which systematically increases with increasing energy, eventually exceeds the uncertainties in the ratio of the standards, estimated to be 0.7%. This underscores the importance of selecting the method of specifying beam quality, either %dd(10)x or TPR20,10, at least for the 'soft' beams used by NRC in this comparison. In the case of the air kerma standards, which were also compared at 60Co energy, the LNHB determination was greater than NRC's by 0.14%, which is not significant given the uncertainties on the standards.

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).

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.