Cargando…

TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG‐51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tailor, R. C., Hanson, W. F., Ibbott, G. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724471/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777144
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2524
_version_ 1783285367025172480
author Tailor, R. C.
Hanson, W. F.
Ibbott, G. S.
author_facet Tailor, R. C.
Hanson, W. F.
Ibbott, G. S.
author_sort Tailor, R. C.
collection PubMed
description The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG‐51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where physicists have had problems. At the beginning of the year 2000, the RPC requested that institutions participating in national clinical trials provide the change in measured beam output resulting from the conversion from the TG‐21 protocol to TG‐51. So far, the RPC has received the requested data from [Formula: see text] of the [Formula: see text] institutions in the RPC program. The RPC also undertook a comparison of TG‐21 and TG‐51 and determined the expected change in beam calibration for ion chambers in common use, and for the range of photon and electron beam energies used clinically. Analysis of these data revealed two significant outcomes: (i) a large number [Formula: see text] of the reported calibration changes for photon and electron beams were outside the RPC's expected values, and (ii) the discrepancies in the reported versus the expected dose changes were as large as 8%. Numerous factors were determined to have contributed to these deviations. The most significant factors involved the use of plane‐parallel chambers, the mixing of phantom materials and chambers between the two protocols, and the inconsistent use of depth‐dose factors for transfer of dose from the measurement depth to the depth of dose maximum. In response to these observations, the RPC has identified a number of circumstances in which physicists might have difficulty with the protocol, including concerns related to electron calibration at low energies [Formula: see text] , and the use of a cylindrical chamber at 6 MeV electrons. In addition, helpful quantitative hints are presented, including the effect of the prescribed lead filter for photon energy measurements, the impact of shifting the chamber depth for photon depth‐dose measurements, and the impact of updated stopping‐power data used in TG‐51versus that used in TG‐21, particularly for electron calibrations. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5724471
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57244712018-04-02 TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints Tailor, R. C. Hanson, W. F. Ibbott, G. S. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) is a resource to the medical physics community for assistance regarding dosimetry procedures. Since the publication of the AAPM TG‐51 calibration protocol, the RPC has responded to numerous phone calls raising questions and describing areas in the protocol where physicists have had problems. At the beginning of the year 2000, the RPC requested that institutions participating in national clinical trials provide the change in measured beam output resulting from the conversion from the TG‐21 protocol to TG‐51. So far, the RPC has received the requested data from [Formula: see text] of the [Formula: see text] institutions in the RPC program. The RPC also undertook a comparison of TG‐21 and TG‐51 and determined the expected change in beam calibration for ion chambers in common use, and for the range of photon and electron beam energies used clinically. Analysis of these data revealed two significant outcomes: (i) a large number [Formula: see text] of the reported calibration changes for photon and electron beams were outside the RPC's expected values, and (ii) the discrepancies in the reported versus the expected dose changes were as large as 8%. Numerous factors were determined to have contributed to these deviations. The most significant factors involved the use of plane‐parallel chambers, the mixing of phantom materials and chambers between the two protocols, and the inconsistent use of depth‐dose factors for transfer of dose from the measurement depth to the depth of dose maximum. In response to these observations, the RPC has identified a number of circumstances in which physicists might have difficulty with the protocol, including concerns related to electron calibration at low energies [Formula: see text] , and the use of a cylindrical chamber at 6 MeV electrons. In addition, helpful quantitative hints are presented, including the effect of the prescribed lead filter for photon energy measurements, the impact of shifting the chamber depth for photon depth‐dose measurements, and the impact of updated stopping‐power data used in TG‐51versus that used in TG‐21, particularly for electron calibrations. PACS number(s): 87.53.–j, 87.66.–a John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5724471/ /pubmed/12777144 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2524 Text en © 2003 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Tailor, R. C.
Hanson, W. F.
Ibbott, G. S.
TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
title TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
title_full TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
title_fullStr TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
title_full_unstemmed TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
title_short TG‐51: Experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
title_sort tg‐51: experience from 150 institutions, common errors, and helpful hints
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724471/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777144
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2524
work_keys_str_mv AT tailorrc tg51experiencefrom150institutionscommonerrorsandhelpfulhints
AT hansonwf tg51experiencefrom150institutionscommonerrorsandhelpfulhints
AT ibbottgs tg51experiencefrom150institutionscommonerrorsandhelpfulhints