Cargando…

An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: External dosimetry audits are powerful quality assurance instruments for radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to implement an electron dosimetry audit based on a contemporary code of practice within the requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Prez, Leon, Heukelom, Stan, Jansen, Bartel, Jansen, Wim, van de Kamer, Jeroen, van Klink, Wenze, Kok, Elfried, Perik, Thijs, de Pooter, Jacco, Wittkämper, Frits
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33458368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.02.001
_version_ 1783636789448146944
author de Prez, Leon
Heukelom, Stan
Jansen, Bartel
Jansen, Wim
van de Kamer, Jeroen
van Klink, Wenze
Kok, Elfried
Perik, Thijs
de Pooter, Jacco
Wittkämper, Frits
author_facet de Prez, Leon
Heukelom, Stan
Jansen, Bartel
Jansen, Wim
van de Kamer, Jeroen
van Klink, Wenze
Kok, Elfried
Perik, Thijs
de Pooter, Jacco
Wittkämper, Frits
author_sort de Prez, Leon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: External dosimetry audits are powerful quality assurance instruments for radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to implement an electron dosimetry audit based on a contemporary code of practice within the requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests. This involved the determination of suitable acceptance criteria based on thorough uncertainty analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subject of the audit was the determination of absorbed dose to water, D(w), and the beam quality specifier, R(50,dos). Fifteen electron beams were measured in four institutes according to the Belgian-Dutch code of practice for high-energy electron beams. The expanded uncertainty (k = 2) for the D(w) values was 3.6% for a Roos chamber calibrated in (60)Co and 3.2% for a Roos chamber cross-calibrated against a Farmer chamber. The expanded uncertainty for the beam quality specifier, R(50,dos), was 0.14 cm. The audit acceptance levels were based on the expanded uncertainties for the comparison results and estimated to be 2.4%. RESULTS: The audit was implemented and validated successfully. All D(w) audit results were satisfactory with differences in D(w) values mostly smaller than 0.5% and always smaller than 1%. Except for one, differences in R(50,dos) were smaller than 0.2 cm and always smaller than 0.3 cm. CONCLUSIONS: An electron dosimetry audit based on absorbed dose to water and present-day requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests was successfully implemented. It proved international traceability of the participants value with an uncertainty better than 3.6% (k = 2).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7807662
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78076622021-01-14 An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams de Prez, Leon Heukelom, Stan Jansen, Bartel Jansen, Wim van de Kamer, Jeroen van Klink, Wenze Kok, Elfried Perik, Thijs de Pooter, Jacco Wittkämper, Frits Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Original Research Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: External dosimetry audits are powerful quality assurance instruments for radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to implement an electron dosimetry audit based on a contemporary code of practice within the requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests. This involved the determination of suitable acceptance criteria based on thorough uncertainty analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subject of the audit was the determination of absorbed dose to water, D(w), and the beam quality specifier, R(50,dos). Fifteen electron beams were measured in four institutes according to the Belgian-Dutch code of practice for high-energy electron beams. The expanded uncertainty (k = 2) for the D(w) values was 3.6% for a Roos chamber calibrated in (60)Co and 3.2% for a Roos chamber cross-calibrated against a Farmer chamber. The expanded uncertainty for the beam quality specifier, R(50,dos), was 0.14 cm. The audit acceptance levels were based on the expanded uncertainties for the comparison results and estimated to be 2.4%. RESULTS: The audit was implemented and validated successfully. All D(w) audit results were satisfactory with differences in D(w) values mostly smaller than 0.5% and always smaller than 1%. Except for one, differences in R(50,dos) were smaller than 0.2 cm and always smaller than 0.3 cm. CONCLUSIONS: An electron dosimetry audit based on absorbed dose to water and present-day requirements for calibration laboratories performing proficiency tests was successfully implemented. It proved international traceability of the participants value with an uncertainty better than 3.6% (k = 2). Elsevier 2018-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7807662/ /pubmed/33458368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.02.001 Text en © 2018 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
de Prez, Leon
Heukelom, Stan
Jansen, Bartel
Jansen, Wim
van de Kamer, Jeroen
van Klink, Wenze
Kok, Elfried
Perik, Thijs
de Pooter, Jacco
Wittkämper, Frits
An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
title An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
title_full An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
title_fullStr An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
title_full_unstemmed An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
title_short An on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
title_sort on-site dosimetry audit for high-energy electron beams
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7807662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33458368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2018.02.001
work_keys_str_mv AT deprezleon anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT heukelomstan anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT jansenbartel anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT jansenwim anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT vandekamerjeroen anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT vanklinkwenze anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT kokelfried anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT perikthijs anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT depooterjacco anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT wittkamperfrits anonsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT deprezleon onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT heukelomstan onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT jansenbartel onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT jansenwim onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT vandekamerjeroen onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT vanklinkwenze onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT kokelfried onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT perikthijs onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT depooterjacco onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams
AT wittkamperfrits onsitedosimetryauditforhighenergyelectronbeams