Direct calibration in megavoltage photon beams using Monte Carlo conversion factor: validation and clinical implications. (7th January 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wright, Tracy; Lye, Jessica E; Ramanathan, Ganesan; Harty, Peter D; Oliver, Chris; Webb, David V; Butler, Duncan J
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 60:Number 2(2015:Jan.)
• Page Start: 883
• Page End: 904
• Publication Date: 2015-01-07
• Subjects: Monte Carlo -- absorbed dose -- primary standard -- calorimetry -- kQ -- megavoltage photons -- calibration; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/2/883
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has established a method for ionisation chamber calibrations using megavoltage photon reference beams. The new method will reduce the calibration uncertainty compared to a 60 Co calibration combined with the TRS-398 energy correction factor. The calibration method employs a graphite calorimeter and a Monte Carlo (MC) conversion factor to convert the absolute dose to graphite to absorbed dose to water. EGSnrc is used to model the linac head and doses in the calorimeter and water phantom. The linac model is validated by comparing measured and modelled PDDs and profiles. The relative standard uncertainties in the calibration factors at the ARPANSA beam qualities were found to be 0.47% at 6 MV, 0.51% at 10 MV and 0.46% for the 18 MV beam. A comparison with the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) as part of the key comparison BIPM.RI(I)-K6 gave results of 0.9965(55), 0.9924(60) and 0.9932(59) for the 6, 10 and 18 MV beams, respectively, with all beams within 1 σ of the participant average. The measured k Q values for an NE2571 Farmer chamber were found to be lower than those in TRS-398 but are consistent with published measured and modelled values. Users can expect a shift in the calibration factor at user energies of an NE2571 chamber between 0.4–1.1% across the range of calibration energies compared to the current calibration method.