IAEA TRS-398 Research Articles

Experimental determination of ionization chamber overall correction factor in medium-energy X-ray beams

Introduction According to the IAEA TRS 398, in kilovoltage X-ray beams the calibration factor in terms of absorbed dose to water ( N D , w , Q ) for an ionization chamber can be derived from its calibration factor in terms of air kerma ( N K , Q ) if the chamber overall correction factor, p Q , is known. However, literature p Q values are lacking, especially when referring to the reference depth of 2 g/cm 2 . Purpose To determine the p Q factor at 2 g/cm 2 depth using a new absorbed-dose-to-water ( D w ) primary standard based on an in-water-phantom graphite calorimeter recently established for medium-energy X-ray beams. Materials and methods N D , w , Q factors are directly determined against the D w primary standard. Using the same beam qualities, the N K , Q factors are also determined. Values of p Q are obtained by comparing the N D , w , Q factors with the analogous calibration factors derived by N K , Q using the IAEA TRS 398 formalism. Ratios of mean mass-energy absorption coefficients, water to air, are taken from literature. Results For a Farmer type ionization chamber, the p Q factor was respectively 1.002 and 1.012 for the 180 kV and the 250 kV medium-energy quality of the CCRI series, with a relative combined standard uncertainty of 2%. This figure is going to be reduced to around 1% with the ongoing improvements on the new D w primary standard. Conclusion The new D w primary standard based on graphite calorimetry, although affected by a larger uncertainty compared to primary standards based on water calorimetry, allows independent measurements of p Q factors for ionization chambers currently used in radiotherapy dosimetry.

Dosimetry intercomparison of four proton therapy institutions in Germany employing spot scanning

AimTo verify the consistency of dose and range measurement in an interinstitution comparison among proton therapy institutions in Germany which use the pencil-beam scanning technique. MethodsFollowing a peer-to-peer approach absorbed dose and range have been intercompared in several missions at two hosting centers with two or three visiting physics teams of participating institutions using their own dosimetry equipment. A meta-analysis has been performed integrating the results of the individual missions. Dose has been determined with ionization chambers according to the dosimetry protocol IAEA TRS-398. For determination of the depth of the distal 80% dose the teams used either a scanning water phantom, a variable water column or a multi-layer ionization chamber. ResultsThe systematic deviation between measured doses of the participating institutions is less than 1%. Ranges differ systematically less than 0.4mm. ConclusionsThe match of measured dose and range is better than expected from the respective uncertainties. As all physics teams agree on the assessment of absorbed dose and range, an important prerequisite for a start of joint clinical studies is fulfilled.

Comparison between the TRS-398 code of practice and the TG-51 dosimetry protocol for flattening filter free beams

Dosimetry protocols for external beam radiotherapy currently in use, such as the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51, were written for conventional linear accelerators. In these accelerators, a flattening filter is used to produce a beam which is uniform at water depths where the ionization chamber is used to measure the absorbed dose. Recently, clinical linacs have been implemented without the flattening filter, and published theoretical analysis suggested that with these beams a dosimetric error of order 0.6% could be expected for IAEA TRS-398, because the TPR20,10 beam quality index does not accurately predict the stopping power ratio (water to air) for the softer flattening-filter-free (FFF) beam spectra. We measured doses on eleven FFF linacs at 6 MV and 10 MV using both dosimetry protocols and found average differences of 0.2% or less. The expected shift due to stopping powers was not observed. We present Monte Carlo kQ calculations which show a much smaller difference between FFF and flattened beams than originally predicted. These results are explained by the inclusion of the added backscatter plates and build-up filters used in modern clinical FFF linacs, compared to a Monte Carlo model of an FFF linac in which the flattening filter is removed and no additional build-up or backscatter plate is added.

TH-CD-BRA-05: First Water Calorimetric Dw Measurement and Direct Measurement of Magnetic Field Correction Factors, KQ,B, in a 1.5 T B-Field of An MRI Linac

Purpose: Reference dosimetry in MR-guided radiotherapy is performed in the presence of a B-field. As a consequence the response of ionization chambers changes considerably and depends on parameters not considered in traditional reference dosimetry. Therefore future Codes of Practices need ionization chamber correction factors to correct for both the change in beam quality and the presence of a B-field. The objective was to study the feasibility of water calorimetric absorbed-dose measurements in a 1.5 T B-field of an MRLinac and the direct measurement of kQ,B calibration of ionization chambers. Methods: Calorimetric absorbed dose to water Dw was measured with a new water calorimeter in the bore of an MRLinac (TPR20,10 of 0.702). Two waterproof ionization chambers (PTW 30013, IBA FC-65G) were calibrated inside the calorimeter phantom (ND,w,Q,B). Both measurements were normalized to a monitor ionization chamber. Ionization chamber measurements were corrected for conventional influence parameter. Based on the chambers’ Co-60 calibrations (ND,w,Q0), measured directly against the calorimeter. In this study the correction factors kQ,B was determined as the ratio of the calibration coefficients in the MRLinac and in Co-60. Additionally, kB was determined based on kQ values obtained with the IAEA TRS-398 Code of Practice. Results: The kQ,B factors of the ionization chambers mentioned above were respectively 0.9488(8) and 0.9445(8) with resulting kB factors of 0.961(13) and 0.952(13) with standard uncertainties on the least significant digit(s) between brackets. Conclusion: Calorimetric Dw measurements and calibration of waterproof ionization chambers were successfully carried out in the 1.5 T B-field of an MRLinac with a standard uncertainty of 0.7%. Preliminary kQ,B and kB factors were determined with standard uncertainties of respectively 0.8% and 1.3%. The kQ,B agrees with an alternative method within 0.4%. The feasibility of water calorimetry in the presence of B-fields was demonstrated by the direct determination of Dw and kQ,B. This work was supported by EMRP grant HLT06. The EMRP is jointly funded by the EMRP participating countries within EURAMET and the European Union.

TH‐EF‐204‐00: AAPM‐AMPR (Russia)‐SEFM (Spain) Joint Course On Challenges and Advantages of Small Field Radiation Treatment Techniques

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

TH‐EF‐204‐04: Experience of IMRT and Other Conformal Techniques in Russia

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

TH‐EF‐204‐05: Application of Small‐Field Treatment: The Promises and Pitfalls of SBRT

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

TH‐EF‐204‐01: Introduction

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

TH‐EF‐204‐02: Small Field Radiation Therapy: Physics and Recent Recommendations From IAEA and ICRU

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

TH‐EF‐204‐03: Determination of Small Field Output Factors, Advantages and Limitations of Monte Carlo Simulation

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

TH‐EF‐204‐06: Closing

Joanna E. Cygler, Jan Seuntjens, J. Daniel Bourland, M. Saiful Huq, Josep Puxeu Vaque, Daniel Zucca Aparicio, Tatiana Krylova, Yuri Kirpichev, Eric Ford, Caridad BorrasStereotactic Radiation Therapy (SRT) utilizes small static and dynamic (IMRT) fields, to successfully treat malignant and benign diseases using techniques such as Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT). SRT is characterized by sharp dose gradients for individual fields and their resultant dose distributions. For appropriate targets, small field radiotherapy offers improved treatment quality by allowing better sparing of organs at risk while delivering the prescribed target dose. Specialized small field treatment delivery systems, such as robotic‐controlled linear accelerators, gamma radiosurgery units, and dynamic arc linear accelerators may utilize rigid fixation, image guidance, and tumor tracking, to insure precise dose delivery to static or moving targets. However, in addition to great advantages, small field delivery techniques present special technical challenges for dose calibration due to unique geometries and small field sizes not covered by existing reference dosimetry protocols such as AAPM TG‐51 or IAEA TRS 398. In recent years extensive research has been performed to understand small field dosimetry and measurement instrumentation. AAPM, IAEA and ICRU task groups are expected to provide soon recommendations on the dosimetry of small radiation fields. In this symposium we will: 1] discuss the physics, instrumentation, methodologies and challenges for small field radiation dose measurements; 2] review IAEA and ICRU recommendations on prescribing, recording and reporting of small field radiation therapy; 3] discuss selected clinical applications and technical aspects for specialized image‐guided, small field, linear accelerator based treatment techniques such as IMRT and SBRT. Learning Objectives: To learn the physics of small fields in contrast to dosimetry of conventional fields To learn about detectors suitable for small fields To learn about the role of Monte Carlo simulations in determination of small field output factors To provide an overview of the IAEA small field dosimetry recommendations To provide an overview of the content of the ICRU report on Prescribing, Reporting and Recording of Small Field Radiation Therapy. To learn about special technical considerations in delivering IMRT and SBRT treatments To appreciate specific challenges of IMRT implementationJ. Seuntjens, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Canadian Institutes of Health Research

A standard Fricke dosimeter compared to an ionization chamber used for dosimetric characterization of 60Co photon beam

Abstract The main objective of this study was to investigate the Fricke dosimeter water equivalent system for measurement of dosimetric parameters for photon beam. The parameters measured with the Fricke dosimeter were compared to those obtained with an ionization chamber. In this work characteristics for 60Co γ-rays of field sizes ranging from 5 × 5 cm2 to 20 × 20 cm2 are reported. The measurements were carried out in the secondary standard dosimetry laboratory using a collimated 60Co gamma source therapy unit. The 60Co beam output in terms of absorbed dose to water was obtained as per IAEA TRS 398 recommendations using cylindrical ionization chamber, whose ND,w has been supplied by the IAEA's reference laboratory. Specific quantities measured include: output factors, peak scatter factor, lateral beam profiles and percentage depth dose. The Fricke dosimeters were irradiated in a water phantom using the suitable poly (methyl methacrylate), PMMA stand. Our results demonstrate that Fricke dosimeter and ionization chamber agree with each other.

Under-response of a PTW-60019 microDiamond detector in the Bragg peak of a 62 MeV/n carbon ion beam

To investigate the linear energy transfer (LET) dependence of the response of a PTW-60019 Freiburg microDiamond detector, its response was compared to the response of a plane-parallel Markus chamber in a 62 MeV/n mono-energetic carbon ion beam. Results obtained with two different experimental setups are in agreement. As recommended by IAEA TRS-398, the response of the Markus chamber was corrected for temperature, pressure, polarity effects and ion recombination. No correction was applied to the response of the microDiamond detector. The ratio of the response of the Markus chamber to the response of the microDiamond is close to unity in the plateau region. In the Bragg peak region, a significant increase of the ratio is observed, which increases to 1.2 in the distal edge region. Results indicate a correlation between the under-response of the microDiamond detector and high LET values. The combined relative standard uncertainty of the results is estimated to be 2.38% in the plateau region and 12% in the distal edge region. These values are dominated by the uncertainty of alignment in the non-uniform beam and the uncertainty of range determination.

Monte Carlo calculation of beam quality correction factors in proton beams using detailed simulation of ionization chambers

This work calculates beam quality correction factors (kQ) in monoenergetic proton beams using detailed Monte Carlo simulation of ionization chambers. It uses the Monte Carlo code penh and the electronic stopping powers resulting from the adoption of two different sets of mean excitation energy values for water and graphite: (i) the currently ICRU 37 and ICRU 49 recommended and and (ii) the recently proposed and . Twelve different ionization chambers were studied. The kQ factors calculated using the two different sets of I-values were found to agree with each other within 1.6% or better. kQ factors calculated using current ICRU I-values were found to agree within 2.3% or better with the kQ factors tabulated in IAEA TRS-398, and within 1% or better with experimental values published in the literature. kQ factors calculated using the new I-values were also found to agree within 1.1% or better with the experimental values. This work concludes that perturbation correction factors in proton beams—currently assumed to be equal to unity—are in fact significantly different from unity for some of the ionization chambers studied.

Parameter-based estimation of CT dose index and image quality using an in-house android™-based software

Compromise between radiation dose and image quality is essential in the use of CT imaging. CT dose index (CTDI) is currently the primary dosimetric formalisms in CT scan, while the low and high contrast resolutions are aspects indicating the image quality. This study was aimed to estimate CTDIvol and image quality measures through a range of exposure parameters variation. CTDI measurements were performed using PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) phantom of 16 cm diameter, while the image quality test was conducted by using catphan ® 600. CTDI measurements were carried out according to IAEA TRS 457 protocol using axial scan mode, under varied parameters of tube voltage, collimation or slice thickness, and tube current. Image quality test was conducted accordingly under the same exposure parameters with CTDI measurements. An Android™ based software was also result of this study. The software was designed to estimate the value of CTDIvol with maximum difference compared to actual CTDIvol measurement of 8.97%. Image quality can also be estimated through CNR parameter with maximum difference to actual CNR measurement of 21.65%.

Point/Counterpoint. Calibration of radiotherapy ionization chambers using Co-60 is outdated and should be replaced by direct calibration in linear accelerator beams.

Point/Counterpoint. Calibration of radiotherapy ionization chambers using Co-60 is outdated and should be replaced by direct calibration in linear accelerator beams.

Determination of the ion recombination correction factor for intraoperative electron beams

The ion recombination correction factor (ks) is determined for the Advanced Markus chamber exposed to electron beams produced by a dedicated intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) accelerator at medium dose-per-pulse values. The authors evaluate five different methods. Three of them are known as Boag's modified expressions, which are based on the two-voltage-analysis method and include the free-electron component. In the fourth method the IAEA TRS-398 protocol is applied, which uses the same two-voltage-analysis method but ignores the free-electron component, and finally the fifth approach is known as the Jaffé plot. ks values were obtained in the range of 4 mGy/pulse to 42 mGy/pulse and were compared with ks values determined by means of radiochromic films, which are independent of the dose rate. It was found that ks values that resulted from the three Boag's modified expressions and the TRS-398 protocol deviated by on average 1.5% and 1.4%, respectively, from the reference ks values based on film dosimetry. These results are within the estimated relative uncertainty of ±3%. On the other hand, the absolute deviation of each method depends on the dose-per-pulse value at which the method is investigated. In conclusion, in the medium dose-per-pulse range all Boag's modified expressions could be used for ks determination. Above a dose-per-pulse value of 35 mGy/pulse, the TRS-398 approach should be avoided. At 27 mGy/pulse and a maximum operation voltage of 300 V the ks value resulting from the Jaffé plot showed a 0.3% deviation from the reference value. More investigation on the Jaffé plot is necessary at higher dose-per-pulse values.

Experimental validation of the dual parameter beam quality specifier for reference dosimetry in flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon beams

Removal of the flattening filter alters the energy spectrum of the photon beam such that current beam quality specifiers may not correctly account for this change when predicting the Spencer–Attix restricted water-to-air mass collision stopping-power ratio, . Johnsson et al ( Phys. Med. Biol. 45 2733–45) proposed a beam quality specifier, known as the dual parameter beam quality specifier, which was calculated via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations using transmission data of primary kerma through two differing thicknesses of water material. Ceberg et al ( Med. Phys. 37 1164–8) extended this MC study to include relevant flattening filter free (FFF) beam data. Experimental investigations of this dual parameter beam quality specifier have not previously been published, therefore the purpose of this work was to validate that the dual parameter beam quality specifier could be measured experimentally for clinical beams (both with a flattening filter (WFF) and without (FFF)).Transmission measurements of primary kerma were performed by employing the setup outlined in Johnsson et al ( Phys. Med. Biol. 44 2445–50). Varying absorber thicknesses, in 5 cm increments from 5 to 40 cm, were placed at isocentre with the chamber positioned at an extended source to chamber distance of 300 cm. Experimental setup for TPR20,10 and %dd(10)x followed the methodology outlined in IAEA TRS398 (2004) and TG-51 (1999) with AAPM Addendum to TG-51 (2014) respectively.The maximum difference of determined using the different beam quality specifiers was found to be 0.35%. Analysis of the absorber thickness combination found that small thicknesses (<10 cm) for the first absorber and absorbers similar in thickness (<10 cm) should be avoided.Stopping-power ratios of the beams investigated were determined using three different beam quality specifiers. The results demonstrated successful experimental determination of the dual parameter beam quality specifier, indicating its potential as an alternate beam quality specifier for FFF beams.

Newly derived transfer factors for Th, Am, Pu, and Cl since publication of IAEA TRS No. 472: a review

Recently derived soil to plant transfer factors (2008–2014) for Th, Am, Pu and Cl were collected from the literature and were statistically analyzed to compare them with the previously published data in IAEA TRS 472. The comparison showed that these newly obtained transfer factors were able to supplement the TRS 472 database to some extent; however, data for Am, Pu and Cl remain limited and incomplete, pointing to the need for further studies.

Technical Note: Experimental determination of the effective point of measurement of two cylindrical ionization chambers in a clinical proton beam.

IAEA TRS-398 notes that cylindrical ionization chambers are preferred for reference proton dosimetry. If a cylindrical ionization chamber is used in a phantom to measure the dose as a function of depth, the effective point of measurement (EPOM) must be taken into account. IAEA TRS-398 recommends a displacement of 0.75 times the inner cavity radius (0.75R) for heavy ion beams. Theoretical models by Palmans and by Bhullar and Watchman confirmed this value. However, the experimental results vary from author to author. The purpose of this study is to accurately measure the displacement and explain the past experimental discrepancies. In this work, we measured the EPOM of cylindrical ionization chambers with high accuracy by comparing the Bragg-peak position obtained with cylindrical ionization chambers (PTW 30013, PTW 31016) to that obtained using a plane-parallel ionization chamber (PTW 34045). The EPOMs of PTW 30013 and 31016 were shifted by 0.92 ± 0.07 R with R = 3.05 mm and 0.90 ± 0.14 R with R = 1.45 mm, respectively, from the reference point toward the source. The EPOMs obtained were greater than the value of 0.75R proposed by the IAEA TRS-398 and the analytical results.