Cargando…

Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51

Two of the most popular dosimetry systems used for calibration of megavoltage photon and electron beams in radiation therapy are (i) cylindrical Farmer‐type chambers in liquid water and (ii) Holt Memorial parallel‐plate chambers in clear polystyrene. Since implementation of the AAPM TG‐21 calibratio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Followill, David S., Hanson, William F., Ibbott, Geoffrey S., Eglezopoulos, Leon R., Chui, Chen‐Shou
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/PMC5724477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2527
_version_ 1783285368448090112
author Followill, David S.
Hanson, William F.
Ibbott, Geoffrey S.
Eglezopoulos, Leon R.
Chui, Chen‐Shou
author_facet Followill, David S.
Hanson, William F.
Ibbott, Geoffrey S.
Eglezopoulos, Leon R.
Chui, Chen‐Shou
author_sort Followill, David S.
collection PubMed
description Two of the most popular dosimetry systems used for calibration of megavoltage photon and electron beams in radiation therapy are (i) cylindrical Farmer‐type chambers in liquid water and (ii) Holt Memorial parallel‐plate chambers in clear polystyrene. Since implementation of the AAPM TG‐21 calibration protocol, the Radiological Physics Center (which uses the Farmer in‐water system) has compared machine calibrations on two occasions with those of Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center (which uses the Holt in‐polystyrene system). Two years post publication of the TG‐51 protocol, 70% of the clinics monitored by the RPC still use TG‐21. Seventeen photon beams from cobalt‐60 to 18 MV and 31 electron beams from 6 to 20 MeV were compared using the TG‐21 protocol. These data represent the most comprehensive comparison of the two most popular systems in use. Based on the average percent difference, the two systems yielded the same absorbed dose to water at the reference point in phantom to within 1.5% for both modalities. No energy dependence was evident in the results; however, a systematic average percent difference between photons and electrons was seen, with the Farmer in‐water system consistently predicting a dose 1.3% lower for electrons than the Holt in‐polystyrene system. For photons both systems predicted the same dose to within 0.3% on average. When a physicist converts from TG‐21 to TG‐51, these data may be of assistance in explaining unexpected changes in output that are different from previously published values. Implementation of the TG‐51 protocol should eliminate any of the observed differences in electron beam dosimetry between the two dosimetry systems because the Holt system cannot be used with TG‐51. PACS number(s): 87.53.‐j, 87.53.‐j
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5724477
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57244772018-04-02 Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51 Followill, David S. Hanson, William F. Ibbott, Geoffrey S. Eglezopoulos, Leon R. Chui, Chen‐Shou J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics Two of the most popular dosimetry systems used for calibration of megavoltage photon and electron beams in radiation therapy are (i) cylindrical Farmer‐type chambers in liquid water and (ii) Holt Memorial parallel‐plate chambers in clear polystyrene. Since implementation of the AAPM TG‐21 calibration protocol, the Radiological Physics Center (which uses the Farmer in‐water system) has compared machine calibrations on two occasions with those of Memorial Sloan‐Kettering Cancer Center (which uses the Holt in‐polystyrene system). Two years post publication of the TG‐51 protocol, 70% of the clinics monitored by the RPC still use TG‐21. Seventeen photon beams from cobalt‐60 to 18 MV and 31 electron beams from 6 to 20 MeV were compared using the TG‐21 protocol. These data represent the most comprehensive comparison of the two most popular systems in use. Based on the average percent difference, the two systems yielded the same absorbed dose to water at the reference point in phantom to within 1.5% for both modalities. No energy dependence was evident in the results; however, a systematic average percent difference between photons and electrons was seen, with the Farmer in‐water system consistently predicting a dose 1.3% lower for electrons than the Holt in‐polystyrene system. For photons both systems predicted the same dose to within 0.3% on average. When a physicist converts from TG‐21 to TG‐51, these data may be of assistance in explaining unexpected changes in output that are different from previously published values. Implementation of the TG‐51 protocol should eliminate any of the observed differences in electron beam dosimetry between the two dosimetry systems because the Holt system cannot be used with TG‐51. PACS number(s): 87.53.‐j, 87.53.‐j John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5724477/ /pubmed/12777147 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2527 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
Followill, David S.
Hanson, William F.
Ibbott, Geoffrey S.
Eglezopoulos, Leon R.
Chui, Chen‐Shou
Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51
title Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51
title_full Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51
title_fullStr Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51
title_full_unstemmed Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51
title_short Differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the TG‐21 protocol: Another reason to switch to TG‐51
title_sort differences in electron beam dosimetry using two commercial ionization chambers and the tg‐21 protocol: another reason to switch to tg‐51
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12777147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i2.2527
work_keys_str_mv AT followilldavids differencesinelectronbeamdosimetryusingtwocommercialionizationchambersandthetg21protocolanotherreasontoswitchtotg51
AT hansonwilliamf differencesinelectronbeamdosimetryusingtwocommercialionizationchambersandthetg21protocolanotherreasontoswitchtotg51
AT ibbottgeoffreys differencesinelectronbeamdosimetryusingtwocommercialionizationchambersandthetg21protocolanotherreasontoswitchtotg51
AT eglezopoulosleonr differencesinelectronbeamdosimetryusingtwocommercialionizationchambersandthetg21protocolanotherreasontoswitchtotg51
AT chuichenshou differencesinelectronbeamdosimetryusingtwocommercialionizationchambersandthetg21protocolanotherreasontoswitchtotg51