在现场剂量测定审核中使用直线加速器光子和电子束为电离室确定的校准系数对剂量测定的影响。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 BIOLOGY
Kensuke Tani, Akihisa Wakita, Naoki Tohyama, Yukio Fujita
{"title":"在现场剂量测定审核中使用直线加速器光子和电子束为电离室确定的校准系数对剂量测定的影响。","authors":"Kensuke Tani, Akihisa Wakita, Naoki Tohyama, Yukio Fujita","doi":"10.1093/jrr/rrae054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to clarify the dosimetric impact of calibration beam quality for calibration coefficients of the absorbed dose to water for an ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit. Institution-measured doses of 200 photon and 184 electron beams were compared with the measured dose using one year data before and after the calibration of the ionization chamber used. For photon and electron reference dosimetry, the agreements of the institution-measured dose against two measured doses in this audit were evaluated using the calibration coefficients determined using 60Co (${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\\mathrm{Co}}$) and linear accelerator (linac) (${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},Q}$) beams. For electron reference dosimetry, the agreement of two institution-measured doses against the measured dose was evaluated using${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},Q}$. Institution-measured doses were evaluated using direct- and cross-calibration coefficients. For photon reference dosimetry, the mean differences and standard deviation (SD) of institution-measured dose against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.4% and -0.3% ± 0.4%, respectively. For electron reference dosimetry, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the direct-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},Q}$ were 1.3% ± 0.8% and 0.8% ± 0.8%, respectively. Further, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the cross-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.6%. For photon beams, the dosimetric impact of introducing calibration coefficients determined using linac beams was small. For electron beams, it was larger, and the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\mathrm{w},Q}$ was most consistent with the institution-measured dose, which was evaluated using a cross-calibration coefficient.</p>","PeriodicalId":16922,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Radiation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11420846/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dosimetric impact of calibration coefficients determined using linear accelerator photon and electron beams for ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit.\",\"authors\":\"Kensuke Tani, Akihisa Wakita, Naoki Tohyama, Yukio Fujita\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jrr/rrae054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to clarify the dosimetric impact of calibration beam quality for calibration coefficients of the absorbed dose to water for an ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit. Institution-measured doses of 200 photon and 184 electron beams were compared with the measured dose using one year data before and after the calibration of the ionization chamber used. For photon and electron reference dosimetry, the agreements of the institution-measured dose against two measured doses in this audit were evaluated using the calibration coefficients determined using 60Co (${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\\\\mathrm{Co}}$) and linear accelerator (linac) (${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},Q}$) beams. For electron reference dosimetry, the agreement of two institution-measured doses against the measured dose was evaluated using${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},Q}$. Institution-measured doses were evaluated using direct- and cross-calibration coefficients. For photon reference dosimetry, the mean differences and standard deviation (SD) of institution-measured dose against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\\\\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.4% and -0.3% ± 0.4%, respectively. For electron reference dosimetry, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the direct-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\\\\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},Q}$ were 1.3% ± 0.8% and 0.8% ± 0.8%, respectively. Further, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the cross-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.6%. For photon beams, the dosimetric impact of introducing calibration coefficients determined using linac beams was small. For electron beams, it was larger, and the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\\\\mathrm{w},Q}$ was most consistent with the institution-measured dose, which was evaluated using a cross-calibration coefficient.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Radiation Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11420846/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Radiation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrae054\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Radiation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrae054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究旨在阐明在现场剂量测定审核中,校准光束质量对电离室水吸收剂量校准系数的剂量测定影响。使用校准电离室前后一年的数据,将机构测量的 200 个光子和 184 个电子束的剂量与测量的剂量进行了比较。在光子和电子参考剂量测定方面,使用 60Co (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$)和直线加速器 (linac) (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$)光束确定的校准系数评估了机构测量剂量与本次审核中两次测量剂量的一致性。对于电子参考剂量测定,使用${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$来评估两个机构测量的剂量与测量剂量的一致性。使用直接校准系数和交叉校准系数对机构测量的剂量进行评估。在光子参考剂量测定中,使用 ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}$ 和 ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ 所测得的机构剂量与实测剂量的平均差和标准偏差(SD)分别为 -0.1% ± 0.4% 和 -0.3% ± 0.4%。在电子参考剂量测定方面,机构使用直接校准系数测量的剂量与使用 ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}$ 和 ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ 测量的剂量的平均差异和 SD 分别为 1.3% ± 0.8% 和 0.8% ± 0.8%。此外,机构使用交叉校准系数测量的剂量与使用${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$测量的剂量的平均差异和SD为-0.1% ± 0.6%。对于光子束而言,引入使用直列加速器光束确定的校准系数对剂量学的影响很小。对于电子束来说,影响较大,使用${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$测得的剂量与机构测得的剂量最为一致,后者使用交叉校准系数进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dosimetric impact of calibration coefficients determined using linear accelerator photon and electron beams for ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit.

This study aimed to clarify the dosimetric impact of calibration beam quality for calibration coefficients of the absorbed dose to water for an ionization chamber in an on-site dosimetry audit. Institution-measured doses of 200 photon and 184 electron beams were compared with the measured dose using one year data before and after the calibration of the ionization chamber used. For photon and electron reference dosimetry, the agreements of the institution-measured dose against two measured doses in this audit were evaluated using the calibration coefficients determined using 60Co (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$) and linear accelerator (linac) (${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$) beams. For electron reference dosimetry, the agreement of two institution-measured doses against the measured dose was evaluated using${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$. Institution-measured doses were evaluated using direct- and cross-calibration coefficients. For photon reference dosimetry, the mean differences and standard deviation (SD) of institution-measured dose against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.4% and -0.3% ± 0.4%, respectively. For electron reference dosimetry, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the direct-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},{}^{60}\mathrm{Co}}$ and ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were 1.3% ± 0.8% and 0.8% ± 0.8%, respectively. Further, the mean differences and SD of institution-measured dose using the cross-calibration coefficient against the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ were -0.1% ± 0.6%. For photon beams, the dosimetric impact of introducing calibration coefficients determined using linac beams was small. For electron beams, it was larger, and the measured dose using ${N}_{D,\mathrm{w},Q}$ was most consistent with the institution-measured dose, which was evaluated using a cross-calibration coefficient.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
86
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Radiation Research (JRR) is an official journal of The Japanese Radiation Research Society (JRRS), and the Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology (JASTRO). Since its launch in 1960 as the official journal of the JRRS, the journal has published scientific articles in radiation science in biology, chemistry, physics, epidemiology, and environmental sciences. JRR broadened its scope to include oncology in 2009, when JASTRO partnered with the JRRS to publish the journal. Articles considered fall into two broad categories: Oncology & Medicine - including all aspects of research with patients that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. Papers which cover related radiation therapies, radiation dosimetry, and those describing the basis for treatment methods including techniques, are also welcomed. Clinical case reports are not acceptable. Radiation Research - basic science studies of radiation effects on livings in the area of physics, chemistry, biology, epidemiology and environmental sciences. Please be advised that JRR does not accept any papers of pure physics or chemistry. The journal is bimonthly, and is edited and published by the JRR Editorial Committee.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信