Cema‐based formalism for the determination of absorbed dose for high‐energy photon beams. Issue 11 (18th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hartmann, Günther H.; Andreo, Pedro; Kapsch, Ralf‐Peter; Zink, Klemens
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 48:Issue 11(2021)
• Page Start: 7461
• Page End: 7475
• Publication Date: 2021-10-18
• Subjects: cema -- dosimetry -- Monte Carlo; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.15266
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Determination of absorbed dose is well established in many dosimetry protocols and considered to be highly reliable using ionization chambers under reference conditions. If dosimetry is performed under other conditions or using other detectors, however, open questions still remain. Such questions frequently refer to appropriate correction factors. A converted energy per mass (cema)‐based approach to formulate such correction factors offers a good understanding of the specific response of a detector for dosimetry under various measuring conditions and thus an estimate of pros and cons of its application. Methods: Determination of absorbed dose requires the knowledge of the beam quality correction factor k Q, Qo, where Q denotes the quality of a user beam and Qo is the quality of the radiation used for calibration. In modern Monte Carlo (MC)‐based methods, k Q, Qo is directly derived from the MC‐calculated dose conversion factor, which is the ratio between the absorbed dose at a point of interest in water and the mean absorbed dose in the sensitive volume of an ion chamber. In this work, absorbed dose is approximated by the fundamental quantity cema. This approximation allows the dose conversion factor to be substituted by the cema conversion factor. Subsequently, this factor is decomposed into a product of cema ratios. They are identified as the stopping power ratio water to the material in the sensitive detector volume, and as the correction factor for the fluence perturbation of the secondary charged particles in the detector cavity caused by the presence of the detector. This correction factor is further decomposed with respect to the perturbation caused by the detector cavity and that caused by external detector properties. The cema‐based formalism was subsequently tested by MC calculations of the spectral fluence of the secondary charged particles (electrons and positrons) under various conditions. Results: MC calculations demonstrate that considerable fluence perturbation may occur particularly under non‐reference conditions. Cema‐based correction factors to be applied in a 6‐MV beam were obtained for a number of ionization chambers and for three solid‐state detectors. Feasibility was shown at field sizes of 4 × 4 and 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm. Values of the cema ratios resulting from the decomposition of the dose conversion factor can be well correlated with detector response. Under the small field conditions, the internal fluence correction factor of ionization chambers is considerably dependent on volume averaging and thus on the shape and size of the cavity volume. Conclusions: The cema approach is particularly useful at non‐reference conditions including when solid‐state detectors are used. Perturbation correction factors can be expressed and evaluated by cema ratios in a comprehensive manner. The cema approach can serve to understand the specific response of a detector for dosimetry to be dependent on (a) radiation quality, (b) detector properties, and (c) electron fluence changes caused by the detector. This understanding may also help to decide which detector is best suited for a specific measurement situation.