The Comparison of Absolute Dose due to Differences of Measurement Condition and Calibration Protocols for Photon Beams

6MV 광자선에서 측정조건의 변화와 측정법의 차이에 의한 절대 선량값의 비교

  • Kim, Hoi-Nam (Catholic University of Korea Dept. of Radiation Oncology. Kangnam St. Mary's Hospital)
  • 김회남 (가톨릭대학교 강남성모병원 치료방사선과)
  • Published : 1998.12.01

Abstract

The absolute absorbed dose can be determined according to the measurement conditions ; measurement material, detector, energy and calibration protocols. The purpose of this study is to compare the absolute absorbed dose due to the differences of measurement condition and calibration protocols for photon beams. Dosimetric measurements were performed with a farmer type PTW and NEL ionization chambers in water, solid water, and polystyrene phantoms using 6MV photon beams from Siemens linear accelerator. Measurements were made along the central axis of $10{\times}10cm$ field size for constant target to surface distance of 100cm for water, solid water and polystyrene phantom. Theoretical absorbed dose intercomparisons between TG21 and IAEA protocol were performed for various measurement combinations on phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG2l and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within $1\%\;while\;the\;average\;value\;of\;IAEA\;protocol\;was\;0.5\%$ smaller than TG2l protocol. For the purpose of comparison, all the relative absorbed dose were nomalized to NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer and water phantom, The average differences are within $1\%,\;but\;individual\;discrepancies\;are\;in\;the\;range\;of\;-2.5\%\;to\;1.2\%$ depending upon the choice of measurement combination. The largest discrepancy of $-25\%$ was observed when NEL ion chamber with Keithley electrometer is used in solid water phantom. The main cause for this discrepancy is due to the use of same parameters of stopping power, absorption coefficient, etc. as used in water phantom. It should be mentioned that the solid water phantom is not recommended for absolute dose calibration as the alternative of water, since absorbed dose show some dependency on phantom material other than water. In conclusion, the trend of variation was not much dependent on calibration protocol. However, It shows that absorbed dose could be affected by phantom material other than water.

Keywords