Accuracy of a dose-area product compared to an absorbed dose to water at a point in a 2 cm diameter field.
Saved in:
| Title: | Accuracy of a dose-area product compared to an absorbed dose to water at a point in a 2 cm diameter field. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Dufreneix, S.1, Ostrowsky, A.1, Rapp, B.1, Daures, J.1, Bordy, J. M.1 |
| Source: | Medical Physics. Jul2016, Vol. 43 Issue 7, p4085-4092. 8p. |
| Subjects: | Dosimeters, Graphite, Calibration, Penumbra (Radiotherapy), Beam collimation |
| Abstract: | Purpose: Graphite calorimeters with a core diameter larger than the beam can be used to establish dosimetric references in small fields. The dose-area product (DAP) measured can theoretically be linked to an absorbed dose at a point by the determination of a profile correction. This study aims at comparing the DAP-based protocol to the usual absorbed dose at a point protocol in a 2 cm diameter field for which both references exist. Methods: Two calorimeters were used, respectively, with a sensitive volume of 0.6 cm (for the absorbed dose at a point measurement) and 3 cm diameter (for the DAP measurement). Profile correction was calculated from a 2D dose mapping using three detectors: a PinPoint chamber, a synthetic diamond, and EBT3 films. A specific protocol to read EBT3 films was implemented and the dose-rate and energy dependences were studied to assure a precise measurement, especially in the penumbra and out-of-field regions. Results: EBT3 films were found independent on dose rates over the range studied but showed a strong under-response (18%) at low energies. Depending on the dosimeter used for calculating the profile correction, a deviation of 0.8% (PinPoint chamber), 0.9% (diamond), or 1.9% (EBT3 films) was observed between the calibration coefficient derived from DAP measurements and the one directly established in terms of absorbed dose to water at a point. Conclusions: The DAP method can currently be linked to the classical dosimetric reference system based in an absorbed dose at a point only with a confidence interval of 95% (k = 2). None of the detectors studied can be used to determine an absorbed dose to water at a point from a DAP measurement with an uncertainty smaller than 1.2%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Physics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: Graphite calorimeters with a core diameter larger than the beam can be used to establish dosimetric references in small fields. The dose-area product (DAP) measured can theoretically be linked to an absorbed dose at a point by the determination of a profile correction. This study aims at comparing the DAP-based protocol to the usual absorbed dose at a point protocol in a 2 cm diameter field for which both references exist. Methods: Two calorimeters were used, respectively, with a sensitive volume of 0.6 cm (for the absorbed dose at a point measurement) and 3 cm diameter (for the DAP measurement). Profile correction was calculated from a 2D dose mapping using three detectors: a PinPoint chamber, a synthetic diamond, and EBT3 films. A specific protocol to read EBT3 films was implemented and the dose-rate and energy dependences were studied to assure a precise measurement, especially in the penumbra and out-of-field regions. Results: EBT3 films were found independent on dose rates over the range studied but showed a strong under-response (18%) at low energies. Depending on the dosimeter used for calculating the profile correction, a deviation of 0.8% (PinPoint chamber), 0.9% (diamond), or 1.9% (EBT3 films) was observed between the calibration coefficient derived from DAP measurements and the one directly established in terms of absorbed dose to water at a point. Conclusions: The DAP method can currently be linked to the classical dosimetric reference system based in an absorbed dose at a point only with a confidence interval of 95% (k = 2). None of the detectors studied can be used to determine an absorbed dose to water at a point from a DAP measurement with an uncertainty smaller than 1.2%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00942405 |
| DOI: | 10.1118/1.4953207 |
