» Articles » PMID: 39154377

Dosimetric Impact of Calibration Coefficients Determined Using Linear Accelerator Photon and Electron Beams for Ionization Chamber in an On-site Dosimetry Audit

Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to clarify the dosimetric impact of calibration beam quality for calibration coefficients of the absorbed dose to water for an ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit. Institution-measured doses of 200 photon and 184 electron beams were compared with the measured dose using one year data before and after the calibration of the ionization chamber used. For photon and electron reference dosimetry, the agreements of the institution-measured dose against two measured doses in this audit were evaluated using the calibration coefficients determined using 60Co (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$) and linear accelerator (linac) (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$) beams. For electron reference dosimetry, the agreement of two institution-measured doses against the measured dose was evaluated using${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$. Institution-measured doses were evaluated using direct- and cross-calibration coefficients. For photon reference dosimetry, the mean differences and standard deviation (SD) of institution-measured dose against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.4% and -0.3% ± 0.4%, respectively. For electron reference dosimetry, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the direct-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were 1.3% ± 0.8% and 0.8% ± 0.8%, respectively. Further, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the cross-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.6%. For photon beams, the dosimetric impact of introducing calibration coefficients determined using linac beams was small. For electron beams, it was larger, and the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ was most consistent with the institution-measured dose, which was evaluated using a cross-calibration coefficient.

References
1.
Clark C, Aird E, Bolton S, Miles E, Nisbet A, Snaith J . Radiotherapy dosimetry audit: three decades of improving standards and accuracy in UK clinical practice and trials. Br J Radiol. 2015; 88(1055):20150251. PMC: 4743452. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150251. View

2.
Kry S, Dromgoole L, Alvarez P, Leif J, Molineu A, Taylor P . Radiation Therapy Deficiencies Identified During On-Site Dosimetry Visits by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core Houston Quality Assurance Center. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017; 99(5):1094-1100. PMC: 5699963. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.08.013. View

3.
Smith K, Balter P, Duhon J, White Jr G, Vassy Jr D, Miller R . AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18(4):23-39. PMC: 5874895. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12080. View

4.
Clark C, Jornet N, Muren L . The role of dosimetry audit in achieving high quality radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2021; 5:85-87. PMC: 7807592. DOI: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.03.009. View

5.
Muir B, Cojocaru C, McEwen M, Ross C . Electron beam water calorimetry measurements to obtain beam quality conversion factors. Med Phys. 2017; 44(10):5433-5444. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12463. View