Cargando…
Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols
This work quantified differences between recommendations of the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols. Reference dosimetry was performed for flattened photon beams with nominal energies of 6, 10, 15, and 23 MV, as well as flattening‐filter free (FFF) beam energies of 6 and 10 MV, fo...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874962/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28574211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12110 |
_version_ | 1783310270556274688 |
---|---|
author | McCaw, Travis J. Hwang, Min‐Sig Jang, Si Young Huq, M. Saiful |
author_facet | McCaw, Travis J. Hwang, Min‐Sig Jang, Si Young Huq, M. Saiful |
author_sort | McCaw, Travis J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | This work quantified differences between recommendations of the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols. Reference dosimetry was performed for flattened photon beams with nominal energies of 6, 10, 15, and 23 MV, as well as flattening‐filter free (FFF) beam energies of 6 and 10 MV, following the recommendations of both the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum protocols using both a Farmer(®) ionization chamber and a scanning ionization chamber with calibration coefficients traceable to absorbed dose‐to‐water (D (w)) standards. Differences in D (w) determined by the two protocols were 0.1%–0.3% for beam energies with a flattening filter, and up to 0.2% and 0.8% for FFF beams measured with the scanning and Farmer(®) ionization chambers, respectively, due to k(Q) determination, volume‐averaging correction, and collimator jaw setting. Combined uncertainty was between 0.91% and 1.2% (k = 1), varying by protocol and detector. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5874962 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58749622018-04-02 Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols McCaw, Travis J. Hwang, Min‐Sig Jang, Si Young Huq, M. Saiful J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This work quantified differences between recommendations of the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols. Reference dosimetry was performed for flattened photon beams with nominal energies of 6, 10, 15, and 23 MV, as well as flattening‐filter free (FFF) beam energies of 6 and 10 MV, following the recommendations of both the TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum protocols using both a Farmer(®) ionization chamber and a scanning ionization chamber with calibration coefficients traceable to absorbed dose‐to‐water (D (w)) standards. Differences in D (w) determined by the two protocols were 0.1%–0.3% for beam energies with a flattening filter, and up to 0.2% and 0.8% for FFF beams measured with the scanning and Farmer(®) ionization chambers, respectively, due to k(Q) determination, volume‐averaging correction, and collimator jaw setting. Combined uncertainty was between 0.91% and 1.2% (k = 1), varying by protocol and detector. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5874962/ /pubmed/28574211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12110 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics McCaw, Travis J. Hwang, Min‐Sig Jang, Si Young Huq, M. Saiful Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
title | Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
title_full | Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
title_short | Comparison of the recommendations of the AAPM TG‐51 and TG‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
title_sort | comparison of the recommendations of the aapm tg‐51 and tg‐51 addendum reference dosimetry protocols |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5874962/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28574211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12110 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mccawtravisj comparisonoftherecommendationsoftheaapmtg51andtg51addendumreferencedosimetryprotocols AT hwangminsig comparisonoftherecommendationsoftheaapmtg51andtg51addendumreferencedosimetryprotocols AT jangsiyoung comparisonoftherecommendationsoftheaapmtg51andtg51addendumreferencedosimetryprotocols AT huqmsaiful comparisonoftherecommendationsoftheaapmtg51andtg51addendumreferencedosimetryprotocols |