Premium
SU‐FF‐T‐90: An Improved Irradiation Setup for An Accurate Measurement of the Dose Rate Constant of Low‐Energy Brachytherapy Sources Using Micro‐TLD Cubes
Author(s) -
Chen Z,
Deng J,
Bongiorni P,
Nath R
Publication year - 2006
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 - 10.1118/1.2241015
Subject(s) - thermoluminescent dosimeter , brachytherapy , kerma , imaging phantom , dosimetry , irradiation , physics , nuclear medicine , cube (algebra) , materials science , optics , nuclear physics , mathematics , radiation therapy , medicine , geometry , dosimeter
Purpose: To develop an improved irradiation setup for the measurement of dose‐rate‐constant for interstitial brachytherapy sources using micro‐TLD cubes by placing a TLD cube at the mid‐point of two sources of nearly equal air kerma strength separated by a distance of 2 cm in a water equivalent solid phantom. Method and Materials: The impact of geometric uncertainties associated with micro‐TLD cubes on measuring the dose‐rate‐constant of low‐energy brachytherapy sources was investigated quantitatively. Integral dose deposited to the volume occupied by a TLD cube in water was calculated by using the Berger formula for the conventional one‐source and the proposed two‐source irradiation setups. The effects of TLD size, shape‐asymmetry (due to mechanical damage and manufacturing defect), and positioning uncertainty on the dose measured by TLD was quantified by comparing the integral TLD dose to expected point‐dose at the measurement point. Results: For a perfect TLD cube centered at the reference point, the integral dose to TLD was nearly identical to the expected point‐dose, independent of TLD orientations. Displacements of TLD by 0.1 to 0.5 mm in the source‐TLD direction resulted in dose errors of 2.3 to 10% in the one‐source setup and 0.1 to 1% in the two‐source setup. The dose errors were < 1% when the displacements of < 0.5 mm was in the perpendicular direction for both setups. The shape asymmetry measured by volume deficit produced similar dose errors, from 2.5% to over 9%, in both setups for volume deficits of 3 to 10%. Conclusion: To keep geometry‐induced uncertainty in dose‐rate‐constant measurement < 2%, the TLD cube must have 1) nearly perfect symmetry with volume deficits < 2%, 2) positional uncertainty < 0.1 mm in source‐TLD direction and < 0.5 mm in perpendicular direction. The requirement for TLD positioning is greatly reduced in the proposed two‐source experimental setup.