• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.194-201
• /
• 2007

Although Gamma Knife irradiates much more radiation in a single session than conventional radiotherapy, there were only a few studies to measure absolute dose of a Gamma Knife. Especially, there is no report of application of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 which requires to use a water phantom in radiation measurement to Gamma Knife. In this article, the authors reported results of the experiments to measure the absorbed dose to water of a Gamma Knife Model C using the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. The absorbed dose to water of a Gamma Knife model C was measured using a water phantom under conditions as close as possible to the IAEA TRS-398 protocol. The obtained results were compared with values measured using the plastic phantom provided by the Gamma Knife manufacturer. Two Capintec PR-05P mini-chambers and a PTW UNIDOS electrometer were used in measurements. The absorbed dose to water of a Gamma Knife model C inside the water phantom was 1.38% larger than that of the plastic phantom. The current protocol provided by the manufacturer has an intrinsic error stems from the fact that a plastic phantom is used instead of a water phantom. In conclusion, it is not possible to fully apply IAEA TRS-398 to measurement of absorbed dose of a Gamma Knife. Instead, it can be a practical choice to build a new protocol for Gamma Knife or to provide a conversion factor from a water phantom to the plastic phantom. The conversion factor can be obtained in one or two standard laboratories.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.53-61
• /
• 2005

The quality factors for cylindrical ionization chambers for kV X-rays were determined by Monte Carlo calculation and measurement. In this study, the X-rays of 60-300 kV beam (lSO-4037) installed in KFDA and specified in energy spectra and beam qualities, and the chambers of PTW N23333 and N30001 were investigated. In calculations, the $R_{\mu}\;and\;R_{Q,Q_{0}}$ in IAEA dosimetry protocols were determined from the air kerma and the cavity dose obtained by theoretical and Monte Carlo calculations. It is shown that the N30001 chamber has a flat response of $\pm1.7\%$ in $110\~300kV$ region, while the response range of two chambers were shown to $\pm3\~4\%$ in $80\~250kV$ region. From this work we have discussed dosimetry protocol for the kV X-rays and we have found that the estimation of energy dependency is more important to apply dosimetry protocol for kV X-rays.

• 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.14 no.4
• /
• pp.249-258
• /
• 2003

A few years ago, a proposal was made to change the dosimetry from the air kerma-based reference dosimetry to the absorbed dose-based reference dosimetry for all radiotherapy beams of ionizing radiation to improve the accuracy of dosimetry. Here, we present a dosimetry study in which the two most widespread absorbed dose­based protocols (IAEA TRS­398 and AAPM TG­51) were compared with an air kerma­based protocol (IAEA TRS-277) by measuring the absorbed dose in the same reference depth. Measurements were performed in three clinical electron beam energies using a PTW 30002 cylindrical chamber, and Markus and Roos plane­parallel chambers. $^{60}$ Co calibration factors were obtained from the KFDA. The absorbed dose differences between the air kerma­based and absorbed dose­based protocols were within 2.0% for all chambers in all beams. The results thus show that the obtained absolute dose values will be not significantly altered by changing from the air kerma­based dosimetry to the absorbed dose­based dosimetry. It was also shown that absorbed dose values between the absorbed dose­based protocols agreed by deviations of less than 0.5% for a cylindrical chamber and less than 0.7% for plane­parallel chambers using cross­calibration factors. Although the use of a cylindrical chamber and plane­parallel chambers resulted in a difference of less than 2% for all situations investigated here, to reduce errors, the plane­parallel chambers are recommended for electron energies in which the use of cylindrical chamber is not permitted in each protocol.

• International Journal of Industrial Entomology and Biomaterials
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.15-23
• /
• 2016

One major constraint in the development and implementation of a successful and cost-effective area-wide integrated pest management (AW-IPM) programme with a SIT component for Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) is the ability to produce a large number of high quality mass-reared individuals. The aim of this study was to develop a more efficient and practical egg collection system in an attempt to improve the mass-rearing of this species. The following basic parameters were examined: egg production per female, egg hatch, pupal recovery, pupal weight, adult emergence and percentage of fliers. Three different strains (Israel wild-type, France wild-type, and Greece laboratory) were tested and each strain was evaluated for six generations. Female flies of the Israel strain produced significantly more eggs per female than the other two strains, but egg hatch was significantly lower. Egg hatch of the France wild type and the Greece laboratory strain was similar. For all other parameters, there was no significant difference between strains; however, there was a significant generational effect for all parameters observed. As a result of this study, a protocol was developed for the mass-rearing of this species that included the use of large adult holding cages that could house up to 96,000 flies per cage. The newly developed method of egg collection using a flat wax panel as one of the sides of an adult holding cage proved to be cost-effective, efficient, making colony growth easier for industrial mass-rearing.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.381-390
• /
• 2002

Purpose : To develop a dose calibration program for the IAEA TRS-277 and AAPM TG-21, based on the air kerma calibration factor (or the cavity-gas calibration factor), as well as for the IAEA TRS-398 and the AAPM TG-51, based on the absorbed dose to water calibration factor, so as to avoid the unwanted error associated with these calculation procedures. Materials and Methods : Currently, the most widely used dosimetry Protocols of high energy photon beams are the air kerma calibration factor based on the IAEA TRS-277 and the AAPM TG-21. However, this has somewhat complex formalism and limitations for the improvement of the accuracy due to uncertainties of the physical quantities. Recently, the IAEA and the AAPM published the absorbed dose to water calibration factor based, on the IAEA TRS-398 and the AAPM TG-51. The formalism and physical parameters were strictly applied to these four dose calibration programs. The tables and graphs of physical data and the information for ion chambers were numericalized for their incorporation into a database. These programs were developed user to be friendly, with the Visual $C^{++}$ language for their ease of use in a Windows environment according to the recommendation of each protocols. Results : The dose calibration programs for the high energy photon beams, developed for the four protocols, allow the input of informations about a dosimetry system, the characteristics of the beam quality, the measurement conditions and dosimetry results, to enable the minimization of any inter-user variations and errors, during the calculation procedure. Also, it was possible to compare the absorbed dose to water data of the four different protocols at a single reference points. Conclusion : Since this program expressed information in numerical and data-based forms for the physical parameter tables, graphs and of the ion chambers, the error associated with the procedures and different user could be solved. It was possible to analyze and compare the major difference for each dosimetry protocol, since the program was designed to be user friendly and to accurately calculate the correction factors and absorbed dose. It is expected that accurate dose calculations in high energy photon beams can be made by the users for selecting and performing the appropriate dosimetry protocol.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.87-102
• /
• 1997

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 10cm $\times$ 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 of phantom, ion chamber, and electrometer. There were no significant differences of absorbed dose value between TG21 and IAEA protocol. The differences between two protocols are within 1％ while the average value of IAEA protocol was 0.5％ smaller than TG21 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 - 2.5％ 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 coeficient, 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Radioactive Waste Society Conference
• /
• 2018.11a
• /
• pp.63-64
• /
• 2018

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.54-60
• /
• 2006

In order to apply the TRS-398 dosimetry protocol developed by IAEA we directly calculated the quality correction factors for high energy photons. The calculations were peformed for seven commercial cylindrical chambers (A12, IC70, N23333, N30001, N30006, NE2571, PR06C/G). In comparison with quality correction factors given by TRS-398 our results were in good agreement within ${\pm}0.3%$ (maximum ${\pm}0.3%$) for all chambers and photon qualities.