Evaluation of the two-voltage method for parallel-plate ionization chambers irradiated with pulsed beams

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Medical physics Pub Date : 2025-04-11 DOI:10.1002/mp.17814
José Paz-Martín, Andreas Schüller, Alexandra Bourgouin, Araceli Gago-Arias, Diego M. González-Castaño, Nicolás Gómez-Fernández, Juan Pardo-Montero, Faustino Gómez
{"title":"Evaluation of the two-voltage method for parallel-plate ionization chambers irradiated with pulsed beams","authors":"José Paz-Martín,&nbsp;Andreas Schüller,&nbsp;Alexandra Bourgouin,&nbsp;Araceli Gago-Arias,&nbsp;Diego M. González-Castaño,&nbsp;Nicolás Gómez-Fernández,&nbsp;Juan Pardo-Montero,&nbsp;Faustino Gómez","doi":"10.1002/mp.17814","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Air-vented ionization chambers exposed to clinical radiation beams may suffer from recombination during the drift of the charge carriers towards the electrodes. Thus, dosimetry protocols recommend the use of a correction factor, usually denominated saturation factor (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <msub>\n <mi>k</mi>\n <mi>sat</mi>\n </msub>\n <annotation>$k_{\\rm sat}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>), to correct the ionization chamber readout for the incomplete collection of charge. The two-voltage method (TVM) is the recommended methodology for the calculation of the saturation factor, however, it is based on the early Boag model, which only takes into account the presence of positive and negative ions in the ionization chamber and does not account for the electric field screening or the free electron contribution to the signal.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the impact of a more realistic approach to the saturation problem that accounts for the free electron fraction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The saturation factor of four ionization chambers (two Advanced Markus and two PPC05) was experimentally determined in the ultra-high dose per pulse reference beam of the German National Metrology Institute (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB]) for voltages ranging from 50 to 400 V and pulse durations between 0.5 and 2.9 <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <mi>μ</mi>\n <mi>s</mi>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$\\umu{\\rm s}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>. Several analytical models and a recently developed numerical model are used to calculate the saturation factor as a function of the dose per pulse and compare it to the obtained experimental data. Parameterizations of the saturation factor against the ratio of charges at different voltages are given for parallel plate ionization chamber with a distance between electrodes of 0.6 and 1 mm in pulsed beams for different pulse durations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The saturation factors calculated using the different Boag analytical models do not agree neither with each other nor with the numerical simulation even at the lowest dose per pulse of the investigated range (<span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mo>&lt;</mo>\n <annotation>$&lt;$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> 30 mGy). A recently developed analytical model by Fenwick and Kumar agrees with the numerical simulation in the low dose per pulse regime but discrepancies are observed when the dose becomes larger (i.e., <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mo>&gt;</mo>\n <annotation>$&gt;$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> 40 mGy for Advanced Markus) due to the electric field perturbation. The numerical simulation is in a good agreement with the experimentally determined charge collection efficiency (CCE) with an average discrepancy of 0.7% for the two PPC05 and 0.5% for the two Advanced Markus. The saturation factor obtained with the numerical simulation of the collected charge has been fitted to a third-order polynomial for different voltage ratios and pulse duration. This methodology provides a practical way for <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <msub>\n <mi>k</mi>\n <mi>sat</mi>\n </msub>\n <annotation>$k_{\\rm sat}$</annotation>\n </semantics></math> evaluation whenever <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mrow>\n <msub>\n <mi>k</mi>\n <mi>sat</mi>\n </msub>\n <mo>&lt;</mo>\n <mn>1.05</mn>\n </mrow>\n <annotation>$k_{\\rm sat}&lt;1.05$</annotation>\n </semantics></math>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The numerical simulation shows a better agreement with the experimental data than the current analytical theories in terms of CCE. The classical TVM, systematically overestimates the saturation factor, with differences increasing with dose per pulse but also present at low dose per pulse. These results may have implications for the dosimetry with ionization chambers in therapy modalities that use a dose per pulse higher than conventional radiotherapy such as intraoperative radiotherapy but also in conventional dose per pulse for ionization chambers that suffer from significant charge recombination.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18384,"journal":{"name":"Medical physics","volume":"52 6","pages":"4894-4909"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mp.17814","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17814","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Air-vented ionization chambers exposed to clinical radiation beams may suffer from recombination during the drift of the charge carriers towards the electrodes. Thus, dosimetry protocols recommend the use of a correction factor, usually denominated saturation factor ( k sat $k_{\rm sat}$ ), to correct the ionization chamber readout for the incomplete collection of charge. The two-voltage method (TVM) is the recommended methodology for the calculation of the saturation factor, however, it is based on the early Boag model, which only takes into account the presence of positive and negative ions in the ionization chamber and does not account for the electric field screening or the free electron contribution to the signal.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of a more realistic approach to the saturation problem that accounts for the free electron fraction.

Methods

The saturation factor of four ionization chambers (two Advanced Markus and two PPC05) was experimentally determined in the ultra-high dose per pulse reference beam of the German National Metrology Institute (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB]) for voltages ranging from 50 to 400 V and pulse durations between 0.5 and 2.9  μ s $\umu{\rm s}$ . Several analytical models and a recently developed numerical model are used to calculate the saturation factor as a function of the dose per pulse and compare it to the obtained experimental data. Parameterizations of the saturation factor against the ratio of charges at different voltages are given for parallel plate ionization chamber with a distance between electrodes of 0.6 and 1 mm in pulsed beams for different pulse durations.

Results

The saturation factors calculated using the different Boag analytical models do not agree neither with each other nor with the numerical simulation even at the lowest dose per pulse of the investigated range ( < $<$  30 mGy). A recently developed analytical model by Fenwick and Kumar agrees with the numerical simulation in the low dose per pulse regime but discrepancies are observed when the dose becomes larger (i.e., > $>$  40 mGy for Advanced Markus) due to the electric field perturbation. The numerical simulation is in a good agreement with the experimentally determined charge collection efficiency (CCE) with an average discrepancy of 0.7% for the two PPC05 and 0.5% for the two Advanced Markus. The saturation factor obtained with the numerical simulation of the collected charge has been fitted to a third-order polynomial for different voltage ratios and pulse duration. This methodology provides a practical way for k sat $k_{\rm sat}$ evaluation whenever k sat < 1.05 $k_{\rm sat}<1.05$ .

Conclusions

The numerical simulation shows a better agreement with the experimental data than the current analytical theories in terms of CCE. The classical TVM, systematically overestimates the saturation factor, with differences increasing with dose per pulse but also present at low dose per pulse. These results may have implications for the dosimetry with ionization chambers in therapy modalities that use a dose per pulse higher than conventional radiotherapy such as intraoperative radiotherapy but also in conventional dose per pulse for ionization chambers that suffer from significant charge recombination.

Abstract Image

脉冲光束辐照平行板电离室双电压法的评价。
背景:暴露在临床辐射光束下的空气通风电离室在电荷载流子向电极漂移过程中可能会发生复合。因此,剂量学方案建议使用校正因子,通常命名为饱和因子(k sat $k_{\rm sat}$),以校正电离室读出的电荷不完全收集。双电压法(TVM)是计算饱和因子的推荐方法,然而,它是基于早期的Boag模型,它只考虑了电离室中正离子和负离子的存在,而没有考虑电场筛选或自由电子对信号的贡献。目的:评估一种更现实的方法对饱和问题的影响,该方法考虑了自由电子分数。方法:在德国国家计量研究所(Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB])的超高剂量每脉冲参考光束下,实验测定了4个电离室(2个Advanced Markus和2个PPC05)在50 ~ 400 V电压和0.5 ~ 2.9 μ s脉冲持续时间下的饱和因子。用几种解析模型和最近发展的数值模型来计算饱和系数作为每脉冲剂量的函数,并将其与得到的实验数据进行比较。给出了不同脉冲持续时间下电极间距为0.6 ~ 1mm的平行平板电离室在不同电压下电荷比的饱和系数参数化。结果:使用不同的Boag分析模型计算的饱和因子彼此不一致,也与数值模拟不一致,即使在研究范围内每脉冲最低剂量($ 30 mGy)。Fenwick和Kumar最近开发的一种分析模型与每脉冲低剂量状态下的数值模拟相一致,但由于电场扰动,当剂量变大时(即,对于Advanced Markus,剂量为>$ >$ 40mgy),就会观察到差异。数值模拟结果与实验结果吻合较好,两种PPC05的平均误差为0.7%,两种Advanced Markus的平均误差为0.5%。在不同的电压比和脉冲持续时间下,通过对所收集电荷的数值模拟得到的饱和系数拟合为三阶多项式。该方法为k sat $k_{\rm sat}$计算k sat $k_{\rm sat}$提供了一种实用的方法。结论:在CCE方面,数值模拟比现有的解析理论更符合实验数据。经典的TVM系统地高估了饱和因子,其差异随着每脉冲剂量的增加而增加,但在每脉冲低剂量时也存在。这些结果可能对每脉冲剂量高于常规放疗(如术中放疗)的电离室治疗方式的剂量测定有影响,也可能对每脉冲剂量高于常规放疗的电离室有影响,因为电离室存在明显的电荷重组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical physics
Medical physics 医学-核医学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Medical Physics publishes original, high impact physics, imaging science, and engineering research that advances patient diagnosis and therapy through contributions in 1) Basic science developments with high potential for clinical translation 2) Clinical applications of cutting edge engineering and physics innovations 3) Broadly applicable and innovative clinical physics developments Medical Physics is a journal of global scope and reach. By publishing in Medical Physics your research will reach an international, multidisciplinary audience including practicing medical physicists as well as physics- and engineering based translational scientists. We work closely with authors of promising articles to improve their quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信