Determination of absorbed dose to water around a clinical HDR {sup 192}Ir source using LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs demonstrates an LET dependence of detector response
- Radiation Physics, Department of Medical and Health Sciences (IMH), Faculty of Health Sciences, Linkoeping University, SE 581 85 Linkoeping (Sweden) and Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, SE 171 16 Stockholm (Sweden)
Purpose: Experimental radiation dosimetry with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), calibrated in a {sup 60}Co or megavoltage (MV) photon beam, is recommended by AAPM TG-43U1for verification of Monte Carlo calculated absorbed doses around brachytherapy sources. However, it has been shown by Carlsson Tedgren et al.[Med. Phys. 38, 5539-5550 (2011)] that for TLDs of LiF:Mg,Ti, detector response was 4% higher in a {sup 137}Cs beam than in a {sup 60}Co one. The aim of this work was to investigate if similar over-response exists when measuring absorbed dose to water around {sup 192}Ir sources, using LiF:Mg,Ti dosimeters calibrated in a 6 MV photon beam. Methods: LiF dosimeters were calibrated to measure absorbed dose to water in a 6 MV photon beam and used to measure absorbed dose to water at distances of 3, 5, and 7 cm from a clinical high dose rate (HDR) {sup 192}Ir source in a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom. Measured values were compared to values of absorbed dose to water calculated using a treatment planning system (TPS) including corrections for the difference in energy absorption properties between calibration quality and the quality in the users'{sup 192}Ir beam and for the use of a PMMA phantom instead of the water phantom underlying dose calculations in the TPS. Results: Measured absorbed doses to water around the {sup 192}Ir source were overestimated by 5% compared to those calculated by the TPS. Corresponding absorbed doses to water measured in a previous work with lithium formate electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) dosimeters by Antonovic et al. [Med. Phys. 36, 2236-2247 (2009)], using the same irradiation setup and calibration procedure as in this work, were 2% lower than those calculated by the TPS. The results obtained in the measurements in this work and those obtained using the EPR lithium formate dosimeters were, within the expanded (k = 2) uncertainty, in agreement with the values derived by the TPS. The discrepancy between the results using LiF:Mg,Ti TLDs and the EPR lithium formate dosimeters was, however, statistically significant and in agreement with the difference in relative detector responses found for the two detector systems by Carlsson Tedgren et al. [Med. Phys. 38, 5539-5550 (2011)] and by Adolfsson et al.[Med. Phys. 37, 4946-4959 (2010)]. Conclusions: When calibrated in {sup 60}Co or MV photon beams, correction for the linear energy transfer (LET) dependence of LiF:Mg,Ti detector response will be needed as to measure absorbed doses to water in a {sup 192}Ir beam with highest accuracy. Such corrections will depend on the manufacturing process (MTS-N Poland or Harshaw TLD-100) and details of the annealing and read-out schemes used.
- OSTI ID:
- 22098747
- Journal Information:
- Medical Physics, Vol. 39, Issue 2; Other Information: (c) 2012 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); ISSN 0094-2405
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Evaluation of a lithium formate EPR dosimetry system for dose measurements around {sup 192}Ir brachytherapy sources
Using LiF:Mg,Cu,P TLDs to estimate the absorbed dose to water in liquid water around an {sup 192}Ir brachytherapy source
Related Subjects
BRACHYTHERAPY
CESIUM 137
COBALT 60
DOSE RATES
DOSIMETRY
ELECTRON SPIN RESONANCE
IRIDIUM 192
LET
LITHIUM FLUORIDES
MAGNESIUM ADDITIONS
PHANTOMS
PHOTON BEAMS
PLANNING
RADIATION DOSES
READOUT SYSTEMS
SEMICONDUCTOR DETECTORS
THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS
TITANIUM ADDITIONS
WATER