For the measurements of an absorbed dose using the standard dosimetry based on an absorbed dose to water the variety of factors, whether big, small, or tiny, may influence the accuracy of dosimetry. The beam quality correction factor kappa(Q, Q(0))of an ionization chamber might also be one of them. The cylindrical type of ionization chamber, the PTW30013 chamber, was chosen for this work and 9 chambers of the same type were collected from several institutes where the chamber types are used for the reference dosimetry. They were calibrated from the domestic Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory with the same electrometer and cable. These calibrated chambers were used to measure absorbed doses to water in the reference condition for the photon beam of 6 MV and 10 MV and the electron beam of 12 MeV from Siemens ONCOR. The biggest difference among chambers amounts to 2.4% for the 6 MV photon beam, 0.8% for the 10 MV photon beam, and 2.4% for the 12 MeV electron beam. The big deviation in the photon of 6 MV demonstrates that if there had been no problems with the process of measurements application of the same kappa(Q, Q(0)) to the chambers used in this study might have influenced the deviation in the photon 6 MV and that how important an external audit is.
Academies and Institutes ; Electrons ; Water

This work is for the preliminary study for the calibration of an (192)Ir brachytherapy source based on an absorbed dose to water standards. In order to calibrate brachytherapy sources based on absorbed dose to water standards using a clyndirical ionization chamber, the beam quality correction factor kappa(Q,Q0) is needed. In this study kappa(Q,Q0)s were determined by both Monte carlo simulation and semiexperimental methods because of the realistic difficulties to use primary standards to measure an absolute dose at a specified distance. The 5 different serial numbers of the PTW30013 chamber type were selected for this study. While chamber to chamber variations ran up to maximum 4.0% with the generic kappa gen(Q,Q0), the chamber to chamber variations were within a maximum deviation of 0.5% with the individual kappa ind(Q,Q0). The results show why and how important ionization chambers must be calibrated individually for the calibration of (192)Ir brachytherapy sources based on absorbed dose to water standards. We hope that in the near future users will be able to calibrate the brachytherapy sources in terms of an absorbed dose to water, the quantity of interest in the treatment, instead of an air kerma strength just as the calibration in the high energy photon and electron beam.
Brachytherapy ; Calibration ; Electrons ; Water

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

We have taken surveys about total 72 departments of radiation oncology which is performing the treatment with linear accelerator and brachytherapy unit in Korea. The survey was included the research about the linear accelerator, brachytherapy, Also, we surveyed the various performance (QA period, manpower, time) of quality control for understanding of efficiency. The survey results show that the QA test of daily and weekly are almost same comparing to USA and Europe but the QA performance of monthly and yearly in Korea are 15.5 which is less than USA and Europe recommended QA item number of 17 to 21. The manpower and QA time in Korea also lower than 50% of USA and Europe recommended because the manpower and QA time limitation in Korea. It will be expected that the manual of quality management in each clinic could be appropriately established when combining the present results with previously published AAPM TG-40 and other protocols.
Brachytherapy ; Europe ; Korea ; Particle Accelerators ; Quality Control ; Radiation Oncology