• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.11-22
• /
• 1998

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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.97-105
• /
• 2009

Absorbed dose to water based protocols recommended that plane-parallel chambers be calibrated against calibrated cylindrical chambers in a high energy electron beam with $R_{50}$>7 $g/cm^2$ (E${\gtrsim}$16 MeV). However, such high-energy electron beams are not available at all radiotherapy centers. In this study, we are compared the absorbed dose to water determined according to cross-calibration method in a high energy electron beam of 16 MeV and in electron beam energies of 12 MeV below the cross-calibration quality remark. Absorbed dose were performed for PTW 30013, Wellhofer FC65G Farmer type cylindrical chamber and for PTW 34001, Wellhofer PPC40 Roos type plane-parallel chamber. The cylindrical and the plane-parallel chamber to be calibrated are compared by alternately positioning each at reference depth, $Z_{ret}=0.6R_{50}-0.1$ in water phantom. The $D_W$ of plane-parallel chamber are derived using across-calibration method at high-energy electron beams of 16, 20 MeV. Then a good agreement is obtained the $D_W$ of plane-parallel chamber in 12 MeV. The agreement between 20 MeV and 12 MeV are within 0.2% for IAEA TRS-398.