skip to main content

SciTech ConnectSciTech Connect

Title: Design and experimental testing of air slab caps which convert commercial electron diodes into dual purpose, correction-free diodes for small field dosimetry

Purpose: Two diodes which do not require correction factors for small field relative output measurements are designed and validated using experimental methodology. This was achieved by adding an air layer above the active volume of the diode detectors, which canceled out the increase in response of the diodes in small fields relative to standard field sizes. Methods: Due to the increased density of silicon and other components within a diode, additional electrons are created. In very small fields, a very small air gap acts as an effective filter of electrons with a high angle of incidence. The aim was to design a diode that balanced these perturbations to give a response similar to a water-only geometry. Three thicknesses of air were placed at the proximal end of a PTW 60017 electron diode (PTWe) using an adjustable “air cap”. A set of output ratios (OR{sub Det}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n}}) for square field sizes of side length down to 5 mm was measured using each air thickness and compared to OR{sub Det}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n}} measured using an IBA stereotactic field diode (SFD). k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{submore » s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} was transferred from the SFD to the PTWe diode and plotted as a function of air gap thickness for each field size. This enabled the optimal air gap thickness to be obtained by observing which thickness of air was required such that k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} was equal to 1.00 at all field sizes. A similar procedure was used to find the optimal air thickness required to make a modified Sun Nuclear EDGE detector (EDGEe) which is “correction-free” in small field relative dosimetry. In addition, the feasibility of experimentally transferring k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} values from the SFD to unknown diodes was tested by comparing the experimentally transferred k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} values for unmodified PTWe and EDGEe diodes to Monte Carlo simulated values. Results: 1.0 mm of air was required to make the PTWe diode correction-free. This modified diode (PTWe{sub air}) produced output factors equivalent to those in water at all field sizes (5–50 mm). The optimal air thickness required for the EDGEe diode was found to be 0.6 mm. The modified diode (EDGEe{sub air}) produced output factors equivalent to those in water, except at field sizes of 8 and 10 mm where it measured approximately 2% greater than the relative dose to water. The experimentally calculated k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} for both the PTWe and the EDGEe diodes (without air) matched Monte Carlo simulated results, thus proving that it is feasible to transfer k{sub Q{sub c{sub l{sub i{sub n,Q{sub m{sub s{sub r}{sup f{sub c}{sub l}{sub i}{sub n},f{sub m}{sub s}{sub r}}}}}}}}} from one commercially available detector to another using experimental methods and the recommended experimental setup. Conclusions: It is possible to create a diode which does not require corrections for small field output factor measurements. This has been performed and verified experimentally. The ability of a detector to be “correction-free” depends strongly on its design and composition. A nonwater-equivalent detector can only be “correction-free” if competing perturbations of the beam cancel out at all field sizes. This should not be confused with true water equivalency of a detector.« less
Authors:
 [1] ;  [2] ;  [3] ;  [4] ; ; ;  [5] ;  [6] ; ;  [7]
  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, Queensland 4102, Australia and School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Queensland 4001 (Australia)
  2. Department of Medical Physics, Saskatchewan Cancer Agency, 20 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7L 3P6, Canada and College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E5 (Canada)
  3. Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006 (Australia)
  4. School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia and Genesis CancerCare Queensland, The Wesley Medical Centre, Suite 1, 40 Chasely Street, Auchenflower, Brisbane, Queensland 4066 (Australia)
  5. School of Chemistry, Physics and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Queensland 4001 (Australia)
  6. Genesis CancerCare Queensland, The Wesley Medical Centre, Suite 1, 40 Chasely Street, Auchenflower, Brisbane, Queensland 4066 (Australia)
  7. Epworth Radiation Oncology, 89 Bridge Road, Richmond, Melbourne, Victoria 3121 (Australia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22409531
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 10; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; AIR; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; CORRECTIONS; DOSIMETRY; MONTE CARLO METHOD