Vol 23, No 3 (2018)
Original research articles
Published online: 2018-05-01

open access

Page views 219
Article views/downloads 261
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Uncertainty in positioning ion chamber at reference depth for various water phantoms

Naoki Kinoshita12, Hiroshi Oguchi1, Toshiki Adachi2, Hiroki Shioura3, Hirohiko Kimura3
DOI: 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.03.001
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2018;23(3):199-206.

Abstract

Background

Uncertainty in the calibration of high-energy radiation sources is dependent on user and equipment type.

Aim

We evaluated the uncertainty in the positioning of a cylindrical chamber at a reference depth for reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams and the resulting uncertainty in the chamber readings for 6- and 10-MV photon beams. The aim was to investigate major contributions to the positioning uncertainty to reduce the uncertainty in calibration for external photon beam radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

The following phantoms were used: DoseView 1D, WP1D, 1D SCANNER, and QWP-07 as one-dimensional (1D) phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry; GRI-7632 as a phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve; and PTW type 41023 and QWP-04 as 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. The uncertainties were analyzed as per the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

Results

The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings ranged from 0.22 to 0.35[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]mm and 0.12–0.25%, respectively, among the phantoms (using a coverage factor k[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]=[[ce:hsp sp="0.25"/]]1 in both cases). The major contributions to positioning uncertainty are: definition of the origin for phantoms among users for the 1D phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry, water level adjustment among users for the phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve, phantom window deformation, and non-water material of the window for the 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry.

Conclusion

The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings exhibited minor differences among the seven phantoms. The major components of these uncertainties differed among the phantom types investigated.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file