Proton dosimetry intercomparison

被引:34
|
作者
Vatnitsky, S
Siebers, J
Miller, D
Moyers, M
Schaefer, M
Jones, D
Vynckier, S
Hayakawa, Y
Delacroix, S
Isacsson, U
Medin, J
Kacperek, A
Lomax, A
Coray, A
Kluge, H
Heese, J
Verhey, L
Daftari, I
Gall, K
Lam, G
Beck, T
Hartmann, G
机构
[1] NATL ACCELERATOR CTR, ZA-7131 FAURE, SOUTH AFRICA
[2] UNIV CATHOLIQUE LOUVAIN, B-1348 LOUVAIN, BELGIUM
[3] PROTON MED RES CTR, TSUKUBA, IBARAKI, JAPAN
[4] PROTON THERAPY CTR ORSAY, ORSAY, FRANCE
[5] UNIV HOSP, SVEDBERG LAB, UPPSALA, SWEDEN
[6] CLATTERBRIDGE CTR ONCOL, CLATTERBRIDGE, ENGLAND
[7] PAUL SCHERRER INST, VILLIGEN, SWITZERLAND
[8] HAHN MEITNER INST BERLIN GMBH, D-1000 BERLIN, GERMANY
[9] UNIV CALIF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94143 USA
[10] MASSACHUSETTS GEN HOSP, BOSTON, MA 02114 USA
[11] UNIV BRITISH COLUMBIA, TRIUMF, VANCOUVER, BC V5Z 1M9, CANADA
[12] GERMAN CANC RES CTR, D-6900 HEIDELBERG, GERMANY
关键词
proton dosimetry; intercomparison; inter-institutional uniformity;
D O I
10.1016/S0167-8140(96)01800-2
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background and purpose: Methods for determining absorbed dose in clinical proton beams are based on dosimetry protocols provided by the AAPM and the ECHED. Both groups recommend the use of air-filled ionization chambers calibrated in terms of exposure or air kerma in a Co-60 beam when a calorimeter or Faraday cup dosimeter is not available. The set of input data used in the AAPM and the ECHED protocols, especially proton stopping powers and w-value is different. In order to verify inter-institutional uniformity of proton beam calibration, the AAPM and the ECHED recommend periodic dosimetry intercomparisons. In this paper we report the results of an international proton dosimetry intercomparison which was held at Loma Linda University Medical Center. The goal of the intercomparison was two-fold: first, to estimate the consistency of absorbed dose delivered to patients among the participating facilities, and second, to evaluate the differences in absorbed dose determination due to differences in Co-60-based ionization chamber calibration protocols. Materials and methods: Thirteen institutions participated in an international proton dosimetry intercomparison, The measurements were performed in a 15-cm square field at a depth of 10 cm in both an unmodulated beam (nominal accelerator energy of 250 MeV) and a 6-cm modulated beam (nominal accelerator energy of 155 MeV), and also in a circular field of diameter 2.6 cm at a depth of 1.14 cm in a beam with 2.4 cm modulation (nominal accelerator energy of 100 MeV). Results: The results of the intercomparison have shown that using ionization chambers with Co-60 calibration factors traceable to standard laboratories, and institution-specific conversion factors and dose protocols, the absorbed dose specified to the patient would fall within 3% of the mean value. A single measurement using an ionization chamber with a proton chamber factor determined with a Faraday cup calibration differed from the mean by 8%. Conclusion: The adoption of a single ionization chamber dosimetry protocol and uniform conversion factors will establish agreement on proton absorbed dose to approximately 1.5%, consistent with that which has been observed in high-energy photon and electron dosimetry.
引用
收藏
页码:169 / 177
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A dosimetry intercomparison phantom for intraoperative radiotherapy
    Armoogum, Kris
    Watson, Colin
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR MEDIZINISCHE PHYSIK, 2008, 18 (02): : 120 - 127
  • [22] Dosimetry intercomparison under reference conditions
    Adolfsson, E.
    Fransson, K. Westerberg
    Larsson, P.
    Eriksson, J.
    Dellow, E.
    Olsson, M.
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2023, 182 : S1454 - S1455
  • [23] NUCLEAR ACCIDENT DOSIMETRY INTERCOMPARISON STUDIES
    SIMS, CS
    HEALTH PHYSICS, 1989, 57 (03): : 439 - 448
  • [24] BIPM NEUTRON-DOSIMETRY INTERCOMPARISON
    HUYNH, VD
    METROLOGIA, 1992, 29 (04) : 295 - 299
  • [25] AN INTERCOMPARISON OF NEUTRON FIELD DOSIMETRY SYSTEMS
    THOMAS, DJ
    WAKER, AJ
    HUNT, JB
    BARDELL, AG
    MORE, BR
    RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 1992, 44 (1-4) : 219 - 222
  • [26] INTERCOMPARISON OF CRITICALITY ACCIDENT DOSIMETRY SYSTEMS
    GREENE, RT
    SWAJA, RE
    HEALTH PHYSICS, 1983, 45 (01): : 191 - 191
  • [27] Proton dosimetry intercomparison based on the ICRU report 59 protocol (vol 51, pg 273, 1999)
    Vatnitsky, S
    Moyers, M
    Miller, D
    Abell, G
    Slater, JM
    Pedroni, E
    Coray, A
    Mazal, A
    Newhauser, W
    Jaekel, O
    Heese, J
    Fukumura, A
    Futami, Y
    Verhey, L
    Daftari, I
    Grusell, E
    Molokanov, A
    Bloch, C
    RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 1999, 52 (03) : 281 - 281
  • [28] SURVEY OF RADIOTHERAPY DOSIMETRY CONSISTENCY IN THE UK - IPSM RADIOTHERAPY DOSIMETRY INTERCOMPARISON
    THWAITES, DI
    WILLIAMS, JR
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1988, 61 (728): : 742 - 743
  • [29] Intercomparison of Personal Dosimetry for Service Providers in Pakistan
    Jabeen, Akhter
    Salman, Syed Ahmad
    HEALTH PHYSICS, 2009, 96 (02): : S5 - S10
  • [30] Intercomparison on the usage of computational codes in radiation dosimetry
    Tanner, RJ
    Chartier, JL
    Siebert, BRL
    Agosteo, S
    Grosswendt, B
    Gualdrini, G
    Kodeli, I
    Leuthold, GP
    Ménard, S
    Price, RA
    Tagziria, H
    Terrissol, M
    Zankl, M
    RADIATION PROTECTION DOSIMETRY, 2004, 110 (1-4) : 769 - 780