• 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.26 no.3
• /
• pp.178-184
• /
• 2015

The Markus ionization chamber(R) is a small plane parallel ionization chamber widely used in clinical electron beam dosimetry. Plane parallel chambers were recommended for low energy electron dosimetry with the beam quality at $R_{50}<4.0g/cm^2$ (${\bar{E}}{\approx}10MeV$) according to TRS-398 protocol. However, the quality correction factors ($k_{Q,Q_0}$) of the Markus chamber was not presented in TRS-398 protocol for electron beam quality at $R_{50}<2.0g/cm^2$ (${\bar{E}}{\approx}4MeV$). In this study, the $k_{Q,Q_0}$ factors of the Markus chambers (PTW-34045) for beam qualities at $R_{50}=1.0$, 1.4, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and $5.0g/cm^2$ were determined by Monte Carlo calculations (DOSRZnrc/EGSnrc) and the dosimetric formalism of quality correction factor. The derived $k_{Q,Q_0}$ values were evaluated using the produced data based on TRS-398 and TG-51 protocols and known values for the Markus chamber.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.77-81
• /
• 2005

To determine the appropriate method out of various available methods to measure build-up doses, the measurements and comparisons of depth doses of build-up region including the surface dose were executed using the Attix parallel-plate ionization chamber, the Markus chamber, a cylindrical ionization chamber, and a diode detector. Based on the measurements using the Attix chamber, discrepancies of the Markus chamber were within $2\%$ for the open field and increased up to $3.9\%$ in the case of photon beam containing the contaminant electrons. The measurements of an cylindrical ionization chamber and a diode detector accord with those of the Attix chamber within $1.5\%\;and\;1.0\%$ and after those detectors were completely immersed in the water phantom. The results suggest that the parallel-plate chamber is the best choice to measure depth doses in the build-up region containing the surface, however, using cylindrical ionization chamber or diode detector would be a reasonable choice if no special care is necessary for the exact surface dose.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.94-101
• /
• 1994

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.322-329
• /
• 2003

Purpose: It is difficult to exactly determine the surface dose and the dose distribution In buildup region of high energy X-rays by using the conventional ion chamber. The aim of this study Is to evaluate the accuracy of widely used dosimetry systems to measure the surface dose and the depth of maximum dose (d$_{max}$). Materials and Methods: We measured the percent depth dose (PDD) from the surface to the d$_{max}$ in either a water phantom or in a solid water phantom using TLD-100 chips, thimble type ion chamber, diode detector, diamond detector and Markus parallel plate ion chamber for 6 MV and 15 MV X-rays, 10$\times$10 cm$^{2}$, at SSD=100cm. We analysed the surface dose and the d$_{max}$. In order to verify the accuracy of the TLD data, we executed the Monte Carlo simulation for 5 MV X-ray beams. Results: The surface doses In 6 MV and IS MV X-rays were 29.31% and 23.36% ior Markus parallel plate ion chamber, 37.17$\%$ and 24.01$\%$ for TLD, 34.87$\%$ and 24.06$\%$ for diamond detector, 38.13$\%$ and 27.8$\%$ for diode detector, and 47.92$\%$ and 35.01$\%$ for thimble type ion chamber, respectively. in Monte Carlo simulation for 6 MV X-rays, the surface dose was 36.22$\%$, which Is similar to the 37.17$\%$ of the TLD measurement data. The d$_{max}$ In 6 WV and 15 MV X-rays was 14$\~$16 mm and 27$\~$29 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the d$_{max}$ among the detectors. Conclusion: There was a remarkable difference in the surface dose among the detectors. The Markus parallel plate chamber showed the most accurate result. The surface dose of the thimble ion chamber was 10$\%$ higher than that of other detectors. We suggest that the correction should be made when the surface dose of the thimble ion chamber Is used for the treatment planning ion the supeficial tumors. All the detectors used In our study showed no difference in the d$_{max}$.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.145-152
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In ionization-chamber dosimetry for high-dose-rate electron beams-above 20 mGy/pulse-the ion-recombination correction methods recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) are not appropriate, because they overestimate the correction factor. In this study, we suggest a practical ion-recombination correction method, based on Boag's improved model, and apply it to reference dosimetry for electron beams of about 100 mGy/pulse generated from an electron linear accelerator (LINAC). Methods: This study employed a theoretical model of the ion-collection efficiency developed by Boag and physical parameters used by Laitano et al. We recalculated the ion-recombination correction factors using two-voltage analysis and obtained an empirical fitting formula to represent the results. Next, we compared the calculated correction factors with published results for the same calculation conditions. Additionally, we performed dosimetry for electron beams from a 6 MeV electron LINAC using an Advanced Markus^® ionization chamber to determine the reference dose in water at the source-to-surface distance (SSD)=100 cm, using the correction factors obtained in this study. Results: The values of the correction factors obtained in this work are in good agreement with the published data. The measured dose-per-pulse for electron beams at the depth of maximum dose for SSD=100 cm was 115 mGy/pulse, with a standard uncertainty of 2.4%. In contrast, the k_s values determined using the IAEA and AAPM methods are, respectively, 8.9% and 8.2% higher than our results. Conclusions: The new method based on Boag's improved model provides a practical method of determining the ion-recombination correction factors for high dose-per-pulse radiation beams up to about 120 mGy/pulse. This method can be applied to electron beams with even higher dose-per-pulse, subject to independent verification.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.176-184
• /
• 1995

It is very useful benefits to use the megavoltage photon beams in deep site tumor radiotherapy for skin sparing effects. But, In some cases of head and mock tumors, it is often necessary to use spoiler for rapid buildup on skin region. A spoiler with tissue equivalent material to be moved between the patients and the collimator can increase or control the skin dose and buildup region due to position and thickness of the spoiler was measured. Then, the effect of spoiler on skin dose and build up region in protruded tumor of head and neck was evaluated quantitatively. The measurements were abtained with PTW 2334 chamber (Markus type) on a polystylene phantom for 6MV x-ray from an accelerator.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.155-160
• /
• 1991

We have studied the effective point of measurement for cylindrical ion chamber in water phantom for medical electron beams. Markus parallel plate chamber water phantom are used for the measurement of depth dose to determine the depth of the effective point of measurement for various energies(for electron 6MeV, 9MeV, 12MeV, 16MeV, and 20MeV; Co-60; for photon 6MV, 15MV). Cylindrical ion chambes(PTW233643 with r=2.75mm, PR-05P with r=2mm, and PM30 wiht r=15mm are used for the measurement of depth dose by same mtethod and the values of d$\_$50/ and R$\_$p/ obtained by three cylindrical chambers were compared with those of a flat chamber. From this we could evaluate the effective measuring points of cylindrical ion chamber. The effective point of measurement was estimated as 0.4～0.6r shifted toward surface from the center of the chamber for electron beam, 0.3～0.7r for $\^$60/Co X-ray.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.40-45
• /
• 1997

When therapeutic irradiation is indicated for the orbital tumors, the greatest concern is the risk of radiation-induced cataract. Conjunctival lymphoma is one of the good examples. We would like to report the procedure of the lens shielding device(L.S.D) and the result of irradiated dose to the lens. L.S.D. consistes of two parts : load alloy to attenuate electron beam, and dental acryl which completely covers the lead alloy to avoid discomfort of cornea from contacting directly with cerrobend and side scattering by cerrobend. And for easy location and removal, side bars were made on each side. Radiation doses were meaured with TLD(TLD 3500 Hawshaw). Markus chamber in a polystyrene phantom. The phantom was irradiated with 9MeV electron beams from Clinac 2100C with $6{\times}6cm$ electron cone. The relative dose at 6mm depth where the lens is located was $4.2\%$ with TLD and $5.1\%$ with Markus chamber clinically when 2600 cGy are irradiated to the eyeball, the mapinary dose to the lens will be 109 cGy or 132 cGy, which will significently reduce the cataract.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.95-100
• /
• 1995

Purpose : To evaluate the effect on surface dose due to Aquaplast used for immobilizing the patients with head and neck cancers in photon beam radiotherapy Materials and Methods: To assess surface and buildup region dose for 6MV X-ray from linear accelerator(Siemens Mevatron 6740), we measured percent ionization value with the Markus chamber model 30-329 manufactured by PTW Frieburg and Capintec electrometer, model WK92. For measurement of surface ionization value, the chamber was embedded in $25{\times}25{\times}3cm^3$ acrylic phantom and set on $25{\times}25{\times}5cm^3$ polystyrene phantom to allow adequate scattering. The measurements of percent depth ionization were made by placing the polystyrene layers of appropriate thickness over the chamber. The measurements were taken at 100cm SSD for $5{\times}5cm^2$, $10{\times}10cm^2$ and $15{\times}15cm^2$ field sizes, respectively. Placing the layer of Aquaplast over the chamber, the same procedures were repeated. We evaluated two types of Aquaplast: 1.6mm layer of original Aquaplast(manufactured by WFR Aquaplast Corp.) and transformed Aquaplast similar to moulded one for immobilizing the patients practically. We also measured surface ionization values with blocking tray in presence or absence of transformed Aquaplast. In calculating percent depth dose, we used the formula suggested by Gerbi and Khan to correct overresponse of the Markus chamber. Results : The surface doses for open fields of $5{\times}5cm^2$, $10{\times}10cm^2$, and $15{\times}15cm^2$ were $79\%$, $13.6\%$, and $18.7\%$, respectively. The original Aquaplast increased the surface doses upto $38.4\%$, $43.6\%$, and $47.4\%$, respectively. For transformed Aquaplast, they were $31.2\%$, $36.1\%$, and $40.5\%$, respectively. There were little differences in percent depth dose values beyond the depth of Dmax. Increasing field size, the blocking tray caused increase of the surface dose by $0.2\%$, $1.7\%$, $3.0\%$ without Aquaplast, $0.2\%$, $1.9\%$, $3.7\%$ with transformed Aquaplast, respectively. Conclusion: The original and transformed Aquaplast increased the surface dose moderately. The percent depth doses beyond Dmax, however, were not affected by Aquaplast. In conclusion, although the use of Aquaplast in practice may cause some increase of skin and buildup region dose, reductioin of skin-sparing effect will not be so significant clinically.