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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCaw, Travis J., Hwang, Min‐Sig, Jang, Si Young, Huq, M. Saiful
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