Premium
Ionization chamber volume averaging effects in dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy beams
Author(s) -
Low Daniel A.,
Parikh Parag,
Dempsey James F.,
Wahab Sasha,
Huq Saiful
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.1582558
Subject(s) - ionization chamber , linear particle accelerator , ionization , imaging phantom , dosimetry , dose profile , optics , instrumentation (computer programming) , materials science , physics , nuclear medicine , beam (structure) , ion , medicine , quantum mechanics , computer science , operating system
The commercial cylindrical ionization chamber ionization integration accuracy of dynamically moving fields was evaluated. The ionization chambers were exposed to long (14 cm), narrow (0.6, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 cm) 6 MV and 18 MV fields. Rather than rely on the linear accelerator to reproducibly scan across the chamber, the chambers were scanned beneath fixed portals. A water‐equivalent phantom was constructed with cavities that matched the chambers and placed on a computer‐controlled one‐dimensional table. Computer‐controlled electrometers were utilized in continuous charge integrate mode, with 10 samples of the charge, along with time stamps, acquired for each chamber location. A reference chamber was placed just beneath the linear accelerator jaws to adjust for variations in linear accelerator dose rate. The scan spatial resolution was selected to adequately sample regions of steep dose gradient and second spatial derivative (curvature). A fixed measurement in a 10 × 10 cm 2field was used to normalize the profiles to absolute chamber response. Three ionization chambers were tested, a microchamber ( 0.009 cm 3) , a Farmer chamber ( 0.6 cm 3 ) and a waterproof scanning chamber ( 0.125 cm 3) . The larger chambers exhibited severe under‐response at the small field's centers, but all of the chambers, independent of orientation, accurately integrated the ionization across the scanned portal. This indicates that the tested ionization chambers provide accurate integrated charges in regions of homogeneous dose regions. Partial integration (less than the field width plus the chamber length plus 2 cm), yielded integration errors of greater than 1% and 2% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively, with errors for the Farmer chamber of greater than 10% even for the 4 cm wide field.