Abstract

PurposeDiscrepancy between experimental and Monte Carlo simulated dose–response of the microDiamond (mD) detector (type 60019, PTW Freiburg, Germany) at small field sizes has been reported. In this work, the radiation‐induced charge imbalance in the structural components of the detector has been investigated as the possible cause of this discrepancy.Materials and methodsOutput ratio (OR) measurements have been performed using standard and modified versions of the mD detector at nominal field sizes from 6 mm × 6 mm to 40 mm × 40 mm. In the first modified mD detector (mD_reversed), the type of charge carriers collected is reversed by connecting the opposite contact to the electrometer. In the second modified mD detector (mD_shortened), the detector's contacts have been shortened. The third modified mD detector (mD_noChip) is the same as the standard version but the diamond chip with the sensitive volume has been removed. Output correction factors were calculated from the measured OR and simulated using the EGSnrc package. An adapted Monte Carlo user‐code has been used to study the underlying mechanisms of the field size‐dependent charge imbalance and to identify the detector's structural components contributing to this effect.ResultsAt the smallest field size investigated, the OR measured using the standard mD detector is >3% higher than the OR obtained using the modified mD detector with reversed contact (mD_reversed). Combining the results obtained with the different versions of the detector, the OR have been corrected for the effect of radiation imbalance. The OR obtained using the modified mD detector with shortened contacts (mD_shortened) agree with the corrected OR, all showing an over‐response of less than 2% at the field sizes investigated. The discrepancy between the experimental and simulated output correction factors has been eliminated after accounting for the effect of charge imbalance.Discussions and conclusionsThe role of radiation‐induced charge imbalance on the dose–response of mD detector in small field dosimetry has been studied and quantified. It has been demonstrated that the effect is significant at small field sizes. Multiple methods were used to quantify the effect of charge imbalance with good agreement between Monte Carlo simulations and experimental results obtained with modified detectors. When this correction is applied to the Monte Carlo data, the discrepancy from experimental data is eliminated. Based on the detailed component analysis using an adapted Monte Carlo user‐code, it has been demonstrated that the effect of charge imbalance can be minimized by modifying the design of the detector's contacts.

Highlights

  • Since the commercialization of the microDiamond detector, the dose-response of the detector in small fields has been investigated extensively using experimental methods,[1,2,3,4] Monte Carlo simulations,[5,6,7] or a combination of both.[8,9,10]. These studies have demonstrated that the detector is suitable for small field dosimetry, deviations of the output ratios (OR) from the field output factors at small field sizes have been reported

  • The cause can be mainly attributed to two perturbation effects: (a) the volume-averaging due to the finite area of the sensitive volume (2.2 mm diameter); and (b) the density perturbation due to the higher electron density of the detector’s structural components compared to that of normal water.[11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]

  • The volume-averaging effect will cause the detector to under-respond along the central axis due to the bell-shaped dose profiles, that is, Pvol is larger than unity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Since the commercialization of the microDiamond (mD) detector (type 60019, PTW Freiburg, Germany), the dose-response of the detector in small fields has been investigated extensively using experimental methods,[1,2,3,4] Monte Carlo simulations,[5,6,7] or a combination of both.[8,9,10] these studies have demonstrated that the detector is suitable for small field dosimetry, deviations of the output ratios (OR) from the field output factors at small field sizes have been reported. The perturbation due to the volume-averaging effect is well-understood since the measured signal represents the weighted average of the absorbed dose to water over the sensitive volume of the detector. The volume-averaging correction factor, Pvol, can be derived as the ratio of the absorbed dose to water at the point of measurement and this average dose value.[13,19,20,21] At small field sizes, the volume-averaging effect will cause the detector to under-respond along the central axis due to the bell-shaped dose profiles, that is, Pvol is larger than unity

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.