RESUMEN
Objective. In this experimental work we compared the determination of absorbed dose to water using four ionization chambers (ICs), a PTW-34045 Advanced Markus, a PTW-34001 Roos, an IBA-PPC05 and a PTW-30012 Farmer, irradiated under the same conditions in one continuous- and in two pulsed-scanned proton beams.Approach. The ICs were positioned at 2 cm depth in a water phantom in four square-field single-energy scanned-proton beams with nominal energies between 80 and 220 MeV and in the middle of 10 × 10 × 10 cm3dose cubes centered at 10 cm or 12.5 cm depth in water. The water-equivalent thickness (WET) of the entrance window and the effective point of measurement was considered when positioning the plane parallel (PP) ICs and the cylindrical ICs, respectively. To reduce uncertainties, all ICs were calibrated at the same primary standards laboratory. We used the beam quality (kQ) correction factors for the ICs under investigation from IAEA TRS-398, the newly calculated Monte Carlo (MC) values and the anticipated IAEA TRS-398 updated recommendations.Main results. Dose differences among the four ICs ranged between 1.5% and 3.7% using both the TRS-398 and the newly recommendedkQvalues. The spread among the chambers is reduced with the newlykQvalues. The largest differences were observed between the rest of the ICs and the IBA-PPC05 IC, obtaining lower dose with the IBA-PPC05.Significance. We provide experimental data comparing different types of chambers in different proton beam qualities. The observed dose differences between the ICs appear to be related to inconsistencies in the determination of thekQvalues. For PP ICs, MC studies account for the physical thickness of the entrance window rather than the WET. The additional energy loss that the wall material invokes is not negligible for the IBA-PPC05 and might partially explain the lowkQvalues determined for this IC. To resolve this inconsistency and to benchmark MC values,kQvalues measured using calorimetry are needed.
Asunto(s)
Radiometría , Radiometría/instrumentación , Radiometría/métodos , Método de Montecarlo , Terapia de Protones/instrumentación , Protones , Fantasmas de Imagen , Estándares de Referencia , Incertidumbre , Agua , CalibraciónRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to directly calculate [Formula: see text] correction factors for four cylindrical ICs for a 0.35 T MR-linac using the Monte Carlo (MC) method. METHODS: A previously-validated TOPAS/GEANT4 MC head model of the 0.35 T MR-linac was employed. The MR-compatible Exradin A12, A1SL, A26, and A28 cylindrical ICs were modeled considering the dead volume in the air cavity. The [Formula: see text] correction factor was determined for initial electron energies of 5-7 MeV. The correction factor was calculated for all four angular orientations in the lateral plane. The impact of the 0.35 T magnetic field on the IC response was also investigated. RESULTS: The maximum beam quality dependence in the [Formula: see text] exhibited by the A12, A1SL, A26, and A28 ICs was 1.10 %, 2.17 %, 0.81 %, and 1.75 %, respectively, considering all angular orientations. The magnetic field dependence was < 1 % and the maximum [Formula: see text] correction was < 2 % when the detector was aligned along the direction of the magnetic field at 0° and 180° angles. The A12 IC over-responded up to 5.40 % for the orthogonal orientation. An asymmetry in the response of up to 8.30 % was noted for the A28 IC aligned at 90° and 270° angles. CONCLUSIONS: A parallel orientation for the IC, with respect to the magnetic field, is recommended for reference dosimetry in MRgRT. Both over and under-response in the IC signal was noted for the orthogonal orientations, which is highly dependent on the cavity diameter, cavity length, and the dead volume.
Asunto(s)
Aceleradores de Partículas , Radiometría , Radiometría/métodos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética , Efectividad Biológica Relativa , Método de Montecarlo , Campos Magnéticos , Espectroscopía de Resonancia MagnéticaRESUMEN
For the update of the IAEA TRS-398 Code of Practice (CoP), global ionization chamber factors (fQ) and beam quality correction factors (kQ) for air-filled ionization chambers in clinical proton beams have been calculated with different Monte Carlo codes. In this study, average Monte Carlo calculated fQ and kQ factors are provided and the uncertainty of these factors is estimated. Average fQ factors in monoenergetic proton beams with energies between 60 MeV and 250 MeV were derived from Monte Carlo calculated fQ factors published in the literature. Altogether, 195 fQ factors for six plane-parallel and three cylindrical ionization chambers calculated with penh, fluka and geant4 were incorporated. Additionally, a weighted standard deviation of fQ factors was calculated, where the same weight was assigned to each Monte Carlo code. From average fQ factors, kQ factors were derived and compared to the values from the IAEA TRS-398 CoP published in 2000 as well as to the values of the upcoming version. Average Monte Carlo calculated fQ factors are constant within 0.6% over the energy range investigated. In general, the different Monte Carlo codes agree within 1% for low energies and show larger differences up to 2% for high energies. As a result, the standard deviation of fQ factors increases with energy and is â¼0.3% for low energies and â¼0.8% for high energies. kQ factors derived from average Monte Carlo calculated fQ factors differ from the values presented in the IAEA TRS-398 CoP by up to 2.4%. The overall estimated uncertainty of Monte Carlo calculated kQ factors is â¼0.5%-1% smaller than the uncertainties estimated in IAEA TRS-398 CoP since the individual ionization chamber characteristics (e.g. fluence perturbations) are considered in detail in Monte Carlo calculations. The agreement between Monte Carlo calculated kQ factors and the values of the upcoming version of IAEA TRS-398 CoP is better with deviations smaller than 1%.
Asunto(s)
Protones , Publicaciones , Incertidumbre , Método de Montecarlo , Efectividad Biológica RelativaRESUMEN
Purpose.To provide Monte Carlo calculated beam quality correction factors (kQ) for monoenergetic proton beams using the Monte Carlo codefluka.Materials and methods.The Monte Carlo codeflukawas used to calculate the dose absorbed in a water-filled reference volume and the air-filled cavities of six plane-parallel and four cylindrical ionization chambers. The chambers were positioned at the entrance region of monoenergetic proton beams with energies between 60 and 250 MeV. Based on these dose values,fQas well askQfactors were calculated whilefQ0factors were taken from Andreoet al(2020Phys. Med. Biol.65095011).Results. kQfactors calculated in this work were found to agree with experimentally determinedkQfactors on the 1%-level, with only two exceptions with deviations of 1.4% and 1.9%. The comparison offQfactors calculated usingflukawithfQfactors calculated using the Monte Carlo codesgeant4 andpenhshowed a general good agreement for low energies, while differences for higher energies were pronounced. For high energies, in most cases the Monte Carlo codesflukaandgeant4 lead to comparable results while thefQfactors calculated withpenhare larger.Conclusion.flukacan be used to calculatekQfactors in clinical proton beams. The divergence of Monte Carlo calculatedkQfactors for high energies suggests that the role of nuclear interaction models implemented in the different Monte Carlo codes needs to be investigated in more detail.
Asunto(s)
Protones , Método de Montecarlo , Radiactividad , Radiometría , Efectividad Biológica RelativaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to analyze whether the Monte Carlo codes penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are suitable to calculate absorbed doses and f Q / f Q 0 ratios in therapeutic high-energy photon and proton beams. METHODS: We used penh, fluka, geant4/topas, and egsnrc to calculate the absorbed dose to water in a reference water cavity and the absorbed dose to air in two air cavities representative of a plane-parallel and a cylindrical ionization chamber in a 1.25 MeV photon beam and a 150 MeV proton beam - egsnrc was only used for the photon beam calculations. The physics and transport settings in each code were adjusted to simulate the particle transport as detailed as reasonably possible. From these absorbed doses, f Q 0 factors, f Q factors, and f Q / f Q 0 ratios (which are the basis of Monte Carlo calculated beam quality correction factors k Q , Q 0 ) were calculated and compared between the codes. Additionally, we calculated the spectra of primary particles and secondary electrons in the reference water cavity, as well as the integrated depth-dose curve of 150 MeV protons in water. RESULTS: The absorbed doses agreed within 1.4% or better between the individual codes for both the photon and proton simulations. The f Q 0 and f Q factors agreed within 0.5% or better for the individual codes for both beam qualities. The resulting f Q / f Q 0 ratios for 150 MeV protons agreed within 0.7% or better. For the 1.25 MeV photon beam, the spectra of photons and secondary electrons agreed almost perfectly. For the 150 MeV proton simulation, we observed differences in the spectra of secondary protons whereas the spectra of primary protons and low-energy delta electrons also agreed almost perfectly. The first 2 mm of the entrance channel of the 150 MeV proton Bragg curve agreed almost perfectly while for greater depths, the differences in the integrated dose were up to 1.5%. CONCLUSION: penh, fluka, and geant4/topas are capable of calculating beam quality correction factors in proton beams. The differences in the f Q 0 and f Q factors between the codes are 0.5% at maximum. The differences in the f Q / f Q 0 ratios are 0.7% at maximum.
Asunto(s)
Aire , Método de Montecarlo , Fotones , Protones , Dosis de Radiación , Radiometría/instrumentación , AguaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The IAEA TRS-398 code of practice details the reference conditions for reference dosimetry of proton beams using ionization chambers and the required beam quality correction factors (kQ ). Pencil beam scanning (PBS) systems cannot approximate reference conditions using a single spot. However, dose distributions requested in TRS-398 can be reproduced with PBS using a combination of spots. This study aims to demonstrate, using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, that kQ factors computed/measured for broad beams can be used with scanned beams for similar reference dose distributions with no additional significant uncertainty. METHODS: We consider the Alfonso formalism13 usually employed for nonstandard photon beams. To approach reference conditions similar as IAEA TRS-398 and the associated dose distributions, PBS must combine many pencil beams with range or energy modulation and shaping techniques that differ from those used in passive systems (broad beams). In order to evaluate the impact of these differences on kQ factors, ionization chamber responses are computed with MC (Geant4 9.6) in three different proton beams, with their corresponding quality factors (Q), producing a 10 × 10 cm2 field with a flat dose distribution for (a) a dedicated scanned pencil beam (Qpbs ), (b) a hypothetical proton source (Qhyp ), and (c) a double-scattering beam (Qds ). The tested ionization chamber cavities are a 2 × 2 × 0.2 mm³ air cavity, a Roos-type ionization chamber, and a Farmer-type ionization chamber. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Ranges of Qpbs , Qhyp , and Qds are consistent within 0.4 mm. Flatnesses of dose distributions are better than 0.5%. Calculated kQpbs,Qhypfpbs,fref is 0.999 ± 0.002 for the air cavity and the Farmer-type ionization chamber and 1.001 ± 0.002 for the Roos-type ionization chamber. The quality correction factors kQpbs,Qdsfpbs,fref is 0.999 ± 0.002 for the Farmer-type and Roos-type ionization chambers and 1.001 ± 0.001 for the Roos-type ionization chamber. CONCLUSION: The Alfonso formalism was applied to scanned proton beams. In our MC simulations, neither the difference in the beam profiles (scanned beam vs hypothetical beam) nor the different incident beam energies influenced significantly the beam correction factors. This suggests that ionization chamber quality correction factors in scanned or broad proton beams are indistinguishable within the calculation uncertainties provided dose distributions achieved by both modalities are similar and compliant with the TRS-398 reference conditions.