skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-488: Comparison of the TG-51 and TG-51 Addendum Calibration Protocols

Abstract

Purpose: To quantify differences between the TG51 and TG51 addendum calibration protocols. Methods: Beam energies of 6X, 6XSRS, 10X, 15X, 23X, 6XFFF, and 10XFFF were calibrated following both the TG51 and TG51 addendum protocols using both a Farmer and a scanning ionization chamber with traceable absorbed dose-to-water calibrations. For the TG51 addendum procedure, the collimating jaws were positioned to define a 10×10cm{sup 2} radiation field, a lead foil was only used for kQ measurements of FFF energies, and a volume-averaging correction was applied based on crossline and inline dose profiles. For the TG51 procedure, the collimating jaws were set to 10×10cm{sup 2} according to the digital readout, and a lead foil was used for kQ measurements of energies greater than 10MV. Results: For beam energies with a flattening filter, absorbed dose-to-water determined by the two protocols differed by 0.1%–0.3%. For FFF beam energies, differences between the protocols were up to 0.2% and 0.8% for the scanning and Farmer ionization chambers, respectively. Differences between the protocols were due to kQ determination, volume-averaging correction, and measurement of raw ionization. Differences in kQ values between the two protocols were up to 0.4% and 0.2% for the scanning and Farmer ionization chambers, respectively. Volume-averagingmore » corrections were less than 0.1% for the scanning ionization chamber, and up to 0.4% and 0.6% for the Farmer ionization chamber in beams with a flattening filter and FFF beams, respectively. Raw ionization measurements differed up to 0.3%±0.07% due to differences in jaw settings. Conclusion: The TG51 and TG51 addendum calibration protocols differed less than 0.3% for the scanning ionization chamber. For the Farmer chamber in FFF energies, volume-averaging corrections of up to 0.6% contributed to calibration differences of up to 0.8%. Failure to verify the radiation field size can produce calibration differences of up to 0.3%.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1]
  1. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649075
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; CALIBRATION; CORRECTIONS; ION BEAMS; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; READOUT SYSTEMS

Citation Formats

McCaw, T, Hwang, M, Jang, S, and Huq, M. SU-F-T-488: Comparison of the TG-51 and TG-51 Addendum Calibration Protocols. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956673.
McCaw, T, Hwang, M, Jang, S, & Huq, M. SU-F-T-488: Comparison of the TG-51 and TG-51 Addendum Calibration Protocols. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956673.
McCaw, T, Hwang, M, Jang, S, and Huq, M. 2016. "SU-F-T-488: Comparison of the TG-51 and TG-51 Addendum Calibration Protocols". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956673.
@article{osti_22649075,
title = {SU-F-T-488: Comparison of the TG-51 and TG-51 Addendum Calibration Protocols},
author = {McCaw, T and Hwang, M and Jang, S and Huq, M},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To quantify differences between the TG51 and TG51 addendum calibration protocols. Methods: Beam energies of 6X, 6XSRS, 10X, 15X, 23X, 6XFFF, and 10XFFF were calibrated following both the TG51 and TG51 addendum protocols using both a Farmer and a scanning ionization chamber with traceable absorbed dose-to-water calibrations. For the TG51 addendum procedure, the collimating jaws were positioned to define a 10×10cm{sup 2} radiation field, a lead foil was only used for kQ measurements of FFF energies, and a volume-averaging correction was applied based on crossline and inline dose profiles. For the TG51 procedure, the collimating jaws were set to 10×10cm{sup 2} according to the digital readout, and a lead foil was used for kQ measurements of energies greater than 10MV. Results: For beam energies with a flattening filter, absorbed dose-to-water determined by the two protocols differed by 0.1%–0.3%. For FFF beam energies, differences between the protocols were up to 0.2% and 0.8% for the scanning and Farmer ionization chambers, respectively. Differences between the protocols were due to kQ determination, volume-averaging correction, and measurement of raw ionization. Differences in kQ values between the two protocols were up to 0.4% and 0.2% for the scanning and Farmer ionization chambers, respectively. Volume-averaging corrections were less than 0.1% for the scanning ionization chamber, and up to 0.4% and 0.6% for the Farmer ionization chamber in beams with a flattening filter and FFF beams, respectively. Raw ionization measurements differed up to 0.3%±0.07% due to differences in jaw settings. Conclusion: The TG51 and TG51 addendum calibration protocols differed less than 0.3% for the scanning ionization chamber. For the Farmer chamber in FFF energies, volume-averaging corrections of up to 0.6% contributed to calibration differences of up to 0.8%. Failure to verify the radiation field size can produce calibration differences of up to 0.3%.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956673},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Absorbed dose calibration for gamma stereotactic radiosurgery is challenging due to the unique geometric conditions, dosimetry characteristics, and nonstandard field size of these devices. Members of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 178 on Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery Dosimetry and Quality Assurance have participated in a round-robin exchange of calibrated measurement instrumentation and phantoms exploring two approved and two proposed calibration protocols or formalisms on ten gamma radiosurgery units. The objectives of this study were to benchmark and compare new formalisms to existing calibration methods, while maintaining traceability to U.S. primary dosimetry calibration laboratory standards. Methods:more » Nine institutions made measurements using ten gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units in three different 160 mm diameter spherical phantoms [acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) plastic, Solid Water, and liquid water] and in air using a positioning jig. Two calibrated miniature ionization chambers and one calibrated electrometer were circulated for all measurements. Reference dose-rates at the phantom center were determined using the well-established AAPM TG-21 or TG-51 dose calibration protocols and using two proposed dose calibration protocols/formalisms: an in-air protocol and a formalism proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) working group for small and nonstandard radiation fields. Each institution’s results were normalized to the dose-rate determined at that institution using the TG-21 protocol in the ABS phantom. Results: Percentages of dose-rates within 1.5% of the reference dose-rate (TG-21 + ABS phantom) for the eight chamber-protocol-phantom combinations were the following: 88% for TG-21, 70% for TG-51, 93% for the new IAEA nonstandard-field formalism, and 65% for the new in-air protocol. Averages and standard deviations for dose-rates over all measurements relative to the TG-21 + ABS dose-rate were 0.999 ± 0.009 (TG-21), 0.991 ± 0.013 (TG-51), 1.000 ± 0.009 (IAEA), and 1.009 ± 0.012 (in-air). There were no statistically significant differences (i.e., p > 0.05) between the two ionization chambers for the TG-21 protocol applied to all dosimetry phantoms. The mean results using the TG-51 protocol were notably lower than those for the other dosimetry protocols, with a standard deviation 2–3 times larger. The in-air protocol was not statistically different from TG-21 for the A16 chamber in the liquid water or ABS phantoms (p = 0.300 and p = 0.135) but was statistically different from TG-21 for the PTW chamber in all phantoms (p = 0.006 for Solid Water, 0.014 for liquid water, and 0.020 for ABS). Results of IAEA formalism were statistically different from TG-21 results only for the combination of the A16 chamber with the liquid water phantom (p = 0.017). In the latter case, dose-rates measured with the two protocols differed by only 0.4%. For other phantom-ionization-chamber combinations, the new IAEA formalism was not statistically different from TG-21. Conclusions: Although further investigation is needed to validate the new protocols for other ionization chambers, these results can serve as a reference to quantitatively compare different calibration protocols and ionization chambers if a particular method is chosen by a professional society to serve as a standardized calibration protocol.« less
  • Purpose: A surface electronic brachytherapy (EBT) device is in fact an x-ray source collimated with specific applicators. Low-energy (<100 kVp) x-ray beam dosimetry faces several challenges that need to be addressed. A number of calibration protocols have been published for x-ray beam dosimetry. The media in which measurements are performed are the fundamental difference between them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface dose rate of a low-energy x-ray source with small field applicators using different calibration standards and different small-volume ionization chambers, comparing the values and uncertainties of each methodology. Methods: The surface dose rate ofmore » the EBT unit Esteya (Elekta Brachytherapy, The Netherlands), a 69.5 kVp x-ray source with applicators of 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mm diameter, was evaluated using the AAPM TG-61 (based on air kerma) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 (based on absorbed dose to water) dosimetry protocols for low-energy photon beams. A plane parallel T34013 ionization chamber (PTW Freiburg, Germany) calibrated in terms of both absorbed dose to water and air kerma was used to compare the two dosimetry protocols. Another PTW chamber of the same model was used to evaluate the reproducibility between these chambers. Measurements were also performed with two different Exradin A20 (Standard Imaging, Inc., Middleton, WI) chambers calibrated in terms of air kerma. Results: Differences between surface dose rates measured in air and in water using the T34013 chamber range from 1.6% to 3.3%. No field size dependence has been observed. Differences are below 3.7% when measurements with the A20 and the T34013 chambers calibrated in air are compared. Estimated uncertainty (with coverage factor k = 1) for the T34013 chamber calibrated in water is 2.2%–2.4%, whereas it increases to 2.5% and 2.7% for the A20 and T34013 chambers calibrated in air, respectively. The output factors, measured with the PTW chambers, differ by less than 1.1% for any applicator size when compared to the output factors that were measured with the A20 chamber. Conclusions: Measurements using both dosimetric protocols are consistent, once the overall uncertainties are considered. There is also consistency between measurements performed with both chambers calibrated in air. Both the T34013 and A20 chambers have negligible stem effect. Any x-ray surface brachytherapy system, including Esteya, can be characterized using either one of these calibration protocols and ionization chambers. Having less correction factors, lower uncertainty, and based on measurements, performed in closer to clinical conditions, the TRS-398 protocol seems to be the preferred option.« less
  • We explore and describe different protocols for calibrating electron pair distribution function (ePDF) measurements for quantitative studies on nano-materials. We find the most accurate approach to determine the camera-length is to use a standard calibration sample of Au nanoparticles from National Institute of Standards and Technology. Different protocols for data collection are also explored, as are possible operational errors, to find the best approaches for accurate data collection for quantitative ePDF studies.