In this study, we estimated inhomogeneity correction factor in small field. And, we evaluated accuracy of treatment planning and measurement data which applied inhomogeneity correction factor or not. We developed the Inhomogeneity Correction Phantom (ICP) for insertion of inhomogeneity materials. The inhomogeneity materials were 12 types in each different electron density. This phantom is able to adapt the EBT film and 0.125 cc ion chamber for measurement of dose distribution and point dose. We evaluated comparison of planning and measurement data using ICP. When we applied to inhomogeneity correction factor or not, the average difference was 1.63% and 10.05% in each plan and film measurement data. And, the average difference of dose distribution was 10.09% in each measurement film. And the average difference of point dose was 0.43% and 2.09% in each plan and measurement data. In conclusion, if we did not apply the inhomogeneity correction factor in small field, it shows more great difference in measurement data. The planning system using this study shows good result for correction of inhomogeneity materials. In radiosurgery using small field, we should be correct the inhomogeneity correction factor, more exactly.
Electrons ; Radiosurgery

The quality factors (kQ,Q0) were evaluated by appling the results recently studied for the effect of central electrode in TRS-398 protocol. The PTW-31010 and IBA-CC13 chambers were used in this study. The quality factors were calculated as a function of beam quality for high energy electron and photon beams and compared with data currently used in TRS-398 protocol. In the PTW-31010 chamber using aluminium electrode, appling the new central electrode collections, the quality factors were 0.4% and 0.9% higher than current TRS-398 data for high energy photon and electron beams respectively. In the IBA-CC13 chamber using C-552 electrode, there are no variations in quality factors compared to TRS-398 data currently used.
Electrodes ; Electrons

Absorbed dose to water based protocols recommended that plane-parallel chambers be calibrated against calibrated cylindrical chambers in a high energy electron beam with R50>7 g/cm2 (E> or =16 MeV). However, such high-energy electron beams are not available at all radiotherapy centers. In this study, we are compared the absorbed dose to water determined according to cross-calibration method in a high energy electron beam of 16 MeV and in electron beam energies of 12 MeV below the cross-calibration quality remark. Absorbed dose were performed for PTW 30013, Wellhofer FC65G Farmer type cylindrical chamber and for PTW 34001, Wellhofer PPC40 Roos type plane-parallel chamber. The cylindrical and the plane-parallel chamber to be calibrated are compared by alternately positioning each at reference depth, zref=0.6R50-0.1 in water phantom. The DW of plane-parallel chamber are derived using across-calibration method at high-energy electron beams of 16, 20 MeV. Then a good agreement is obtained the DW of plane-parallel chamber in 12 MeV. The agreement between 20 MeV and 12 MeV are within 0.2% for IAEA TRS-398.
Electrons ; Water

The parallel Monte Carlo electron and photon transport (PMCEPT) code [Kum and Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 47, 716 (2006)] for calculating electron and photon beam doses has been developed based on the three dimensional geometry defined by computed tomography (CT) images and implemented on the Beowulf PC cluster. Understanding the limitations of Monte Carlo codes is useful in order to avoid systematic errors in simulations and to suggest further improvement of the codes. We evaluated the PMCEPT code by comparing its normalized depth doses for electron and photon beams with those of MCNP5, EGS4, DPM, and GEANT4 codes, and with measurements. The PMCEPT results agreed well with others in homogeneous and heterogeneous media within an error of 1~3% of the dose maximum. The computing time benchmark has also been performed for two cases, showing that the PMCEPT code was approximately twenty times faster than the MCNP5 for 20-MeV electron beams irradiated on the water phantom. For the 18-MV photon beams irradiated on the water phantom, the PMCEPT was three times faster than the GEANT4. Thus, the results suggest that the PMCEPT code is indeed appropriate for both fast and accurate simulations.
Electrons ; Water

No abstract available.
Electronics ; Electrons ; Publications

No abstract available.
Electrons* ; Positron-Emission Tomography*

The standard dosimetry systems based on an absorbed dose to water recommend to use a planeparallel chamber for the calibration of such a low-megavoltage electron beam as a nominal energy of 6 MeV. For this energy ranges of an electron beam a cylindrical chamber should not be used for the routinely regular beam calibration, but the feasibility of the temporary use of a cylindrical chamber was studied to give temporary solutions for special situations users meet. The PTW30013 chambers and the electron beam quality of R(50)=2.25 g/cm2 were selected for this study. 10 PTW30013 chambers, a cylindrical type of chamber, were calibrated in KFDA, the secondary standards dosimetry laboratories, and given the absorbed dose-to-water calibration factors, respectively. A "temporary" kappa(Q,Q0) for each chamber were calculated using the absorbed dose determined by a cross-calibrated planeparallel chamber, with the result of an average 0.9352 for 10 chambers. This value for PTW30013 chamber was used to determine an absorbed dose to water at the reference depth. The absorbed doses determined by PTW30013 chambers were in an agreement within 2% with that by ROOS chamber. In a certain situation where a cylindrical chamber be used instead of a planeparellel chamber, the value of 0.9352 might be useful to determine an absorbed dose to water in the same beam quality of electron beam as this study.
Calibration ; Electrons ; Water

In case of radiation treatment using small field high-energy photon beams, an accurate dosimetry is a challenging task because of dosimetrically unfavorable phenomena such as dramatic changes of the dose at the field boundaries, dis-equilibrium of the electrons, and non-uniformity between the detector and the phantom materials. In this study, the absorbed dose in the phantom was measured by using an ion chamber and a diode detector widely used in clinics. GAFCHROMIC(R) EBT films composed of water equivalent materials was also evaluated as a small field detector and compared with ionchamber and diode detectors. The output factors at 10 cm depth of a solid phantom located 100 cm from the 6 MV linear accelerator (Varian, 6 EX) source were measured for 6 field sizes (5x5 cm2, 2x2 cm2, 1.5x1.5 cm2, 1x1 cm2, 0.7x0.7 cm2 and 0.5x0.5 cm2). As a result, from 5x5 cm2 to 1.5x1.5 cm2 field sizes, absorbed doses from three detectors were accurately identified within 1%. Wheres, the ion chamber underestimated dose compared to other detectors in the field sizes less than 1x1 cm2. In order to correct the observed underestimation, a convolution method was employed to eliminate the volume averaging effect of an ion chamber. Finally, in 1x1 cm2 field the absorbed dose with a diode detector was about 3% higher than that with the EBT film while the dose with the ion chamber after volume correction was 1% lower. For 0.5x0.5 cm2 field, the dose with the diode detector was 1% larger than that with the EBT film while dose with volume corrected ionization chamber was 7% lower. In conclusion, the possiblity of GAFCHROMIC(R) EBT film as an small field dosimeter was tested and further investigation will be proceed using Monte Calro simulation.
Electrons ; Particle Accelerators ; Water

No abstract available.
Electrons* ; Positron-Emission Tomography*

PURPOSE: We report the results of an external audit on the absorbed dose of radiotherapy beams independently performed by third parties. For this effort, we developed a method to measure the absorbed dose to water in an easy and convenient setup of solid water phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2008, 12 radiotherapy centers voluntarily participated in the external auditing program and 47 beams of X-ray and electron were independently calibrated by the third party's American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) task group (TG)-51 protocol. Even though the AAPM TG-51 protocol recommended the use of water, water as a phantom has a few disadvantages, especially in a busy clinic. Instead, we used solid water phantom due to its reproducibility and convenience in terms of setup and transport. Dose conversion factors between solid water and water were determined for photon and electron beams of various energies by using a scaling method and experimental measurements. RESULTS: Most of the beams (74%) were within +/-2% of the deviation from the third party's protocol. However, two of 20 X-ray beams and three of 27 electron beams were out of the tolerance (+/-3%), including two beams with a >10% deviation. X-ray beams of higher than 6 MV had no conversion factors, while a 6 MV absorbed dose to a solid water phantom was 0.4% less than the dose to water. The electron dose conversion factors between the solid water phantom and water were determined: The higher the electron energy, the less is the conversion factor. The total uncertainty of the TG-51 protocol measurement using a solid water phantom was determined to be +/-1.5%. CONCLUSION: The developed method was successfully applied for the external auditing program, which could be evolved into a credential program of multi-institutional clinical trials. This dosimetry saved time for measuring doses as well as decreased the uncertainty of measurement possibly resulting from the reference setup in water.
Electrons ; Phenylpropionates ; Uncertainty ; Water