Premium
In vivo dosimetry: Intercomparison between p ‐type based and n ‐type based diodes for the 16–25 MV energy range
Author(s) -
Jornet N.,
Ribas M.,
Eudaldo T.
Publication year - 2000
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 - 10.1118/1.599013
Subject(s) - diode , dosimetry , materials science , optics , step recovery diode , optoelectronics , wedge (geometry) , physics , nuclear medicine , schottky diode , medicine
This paper compares two different types of diodes designed to cover the energy range from 16 to 25 MV, one n ‐type (diode‐A) and the other p ‐type (diode‐B). A 18 MV x‐ray beam has been used for all tests. Signal stability postirradiation, intrinsic precision and linearity of response with dose, front–back symmetry, and dose decrease under the diode were studied. Also, the water equivalent thickness of the build up caps was determined. Both types of diodes were calibrated to give entrance dose. Entrance correction factors for field size, tray, source skin distance, angle, and wedge were determined. Finally, the effect of dose rate, temperature and accumulated dose on the diode's response were studied. Only diode‐A had full build‐up for 18 MV x rays and standard irradiation conditions. Field size correction factor was about 2%–4% for field sizes bigger than 20×20 cm 2 for both diodes. Tray correction factor was negligible for diode‐A while diode‐B would overestimate the dose by a 2% for a 40×40 cm 2 field size if the correction factor was not applied. Wedge correction factors are only relevant for the 60° wedge, being the correction factor for diode‐A significantly higher than for diode‐B. Diode‐A showed less temperature dependence than diode‐B. Sensitivity dependence on dose per pulse was a 1.5% higher for diode‐A than for diode‐B and therefore a higher SSD dependence was found for diode‐A. The loss of sensitivity with accumulated radiation dose was only about 0.3% for diode‐A, after 300 Gy, while it amounted to 8% for diode‐B. Weighing the different correction factors for both types of diodes no conclusions about which type is better can be driven. From these results it can be also seen that the dependence of the diode response on dose rate in a pulsed beam does not seem to be associated with the fact of being n ‐type or p ‐type but could be related to the doping level of the diodes.