Premium
SU‐D‐BRC‐06: Experimental and Monte Carlo Studies of Fluence Corrections for Graphite Calorimetry in Proton Therapy
Author(s) -
Lourenco A,
Thomas R,
Bouchard H,
Kacperek A,
Vondracek V,
Royle G,
Palmans H
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4955625
Subject(s) - fluence , monte carlo method , graphite , ionization chamber , proton , stopping power , calorimeter (particle physics) , ionization , proton therapy , materials science , imaging phantom , nuclear physics , beam (structure) , nuclear graphite , atomic physics , physics , optics , ion , irradiation , detector , statistics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , composite material
Purpose: For photon and electron beams, the standard device used to measure absorbed dose is a calorimeter. Standards laboratories are currently working on the establishment of graphite calorimeters as a primary standard for proton beams. To provide a practical method for graphite calorimetry, it is necessary to convert dose to graphite to dose to water, requiring knowledge of the water‐to‐graphite stopping‐power ratio and the fluence correction factor. This study aims to present a novel method to determine fluence corrections experimentally, and to apply this methodology to low‐ and high‐energy proton beams. Methods: Measurements were performed in 60 MeV and 180 MeV proton beams. Experimental information was obtained from depth‐dose ionization chamber measurements performed in a water phantom. This was repeated with different thicknesses of graphite plates in front of the water phantom. One distinct advantage of this method is that only ionization chamber perturbation factors for water are required. Fluence corrections were also obtained through Monte Carlo simulations for comparison with the experiments. Results: The experimental observations made in this study confirm the Monte Carlo results. Overall, fluence corrections between water and graphite increased with depth, with a maximum correction of 1% for the low‐energy beam and 4% for the high‐energy beam. The results also showed that a fraction of the secondary particles generated in proton therapy beams do not have enough energy to cross the ionization chamber wall; thus, their contribution is not accounted for in the measured fluence corrections. This effect shows up as a discrepancy in fluence corrections of 1% and has been confirmed by simulations of the experimental setup. Conclusion: Fluence corrections derived by experiment do not account for low‐energy secondary particles that are stopped in the ion chamber wall. This work will contribute to a practical graphite calorimetry technique for determining absolute dose to water in proton beams.