A comparison of the response of different dosimeters in narrow photon beams (phi > or = 4 mm) of 6 and 18 MV bremsstrahlung has been performed. The detectors used were a natural diamond detector, a liquid ionization chamber, a plastic scintillator and two dedicated silicon diodes. The diodes had a very small detection volume and one was a specially designed double diode using two parallel opposed active volumes with compensating interface perturbations. The characteristics of the detectors were investigated both for dose distribution measurements, such as depth-dose curves and lateral beam profiles, and for output factors. The dose rate and angular dependence of the diamond and the two diodes were also studied separately. The depth-dose distributions for small fields agree well for the diamond, the scintillator and the single diode, while the measured dose maximum for the double diode is about 1% higher and for the liquid chamber about 1% lower than the mean of the others when normalized at a depth of 10 cm. The plastic scintillator and the liquid ionization chamber detect a penumbra width that is slightly broadened due to the influence of their finite size, while the double diode may even underestimate the penumbra width due to its small size and high density. When corrected for the extension of the detector volume a good agreement with Monte Carlo calculated beam profiles was obtained for the plastic scintillator and the liquid ionization chamber. Profiles measured with the diamond show an asymmetry when positioned with the smallest dimension facing the beam, while the double diode, the scintillator and the liquid chamber measure symmetric profiles irrespective of positioning. Significant differences in the output factors were obtained with the different detectors. The natural diamond detector measures output factors close to those with an ionization chamber (less than 1% difference) for field sizes between 3 x 3 and 15 x 15 cm2, but overestimates the output factors for large fields and underestimates the output factors for the smallest field sizes. The single and double diodes overestimated the output factor for large field sizes by up to 7 and 12% respectively due to the high content of low-energy photons. The double diode, and to some extent the single diode, also showed a relative increase in response compared with the more water equivalent liquid chamber and plastic scintillator at the smallest fields where there is a lack of lateral electron equilibrium. Both the plastic scintillator and the liquid chamber also show responses that deviate from the ionization chamber for larger field sizes. The major deviations can be explained based on the characteristics of the sensitive materials and the construction of the detectors.

No abstract

A new international Code of Practice for radiotherapy dosimetry co-sponsored by several international organizations has been published by the IAEA, TRS-398. It is based on standards of absorbed dose to water, whereas previous protocols (TRS-381 and TRS-277) were based on air kerma standards. To estimate the changes in beam calibration caused by the introduction of TRS-398, a detailed experimental comparison of the dose determination in reference conditions in high-energy photon and electron beams has been made using the different IAEA protocols. A summary of the formulation and reference conditions in the various Codes of Practice, as well as of their basic data, is presented first. Accurate measurements have been made in 25 photon and electron beams from 10 clinical accelerators using 12 different cylindrical and plane-parallel chambers, and dose ratios under different conditions of TRS-398 to the other protocols determined. A strict step-by-step checklist was followed by the two participating clinical institutions to ascertain that the resulting calculations agreed within tenths of a per cent. The maximum differences found between TRS-398 and the previous Codes of Practice TRS-277 (2nd edn) and TRS-381 are of the order of 1.5-2.0%. TRS-398 yields absorbed doses larger than the previous protocols, around 1.0% for photons (TRS-277) and for electrons (TRS-381 and TRS-277) when plane-parallel chambers are cross-calibrated. For the Markus chamber, results show a very large variation, although a fortuitous cancellation of the old stopping powers with the ND,w/NK ratios makes the overall discrepancy between TRS-398 and TRS-277 in this case smaller than for well-guarded plane-parallel chambers. Chambers of the Roos-type with a 60Co ND,w calibration yield the maximum discrepancy in absorbed dose, which varies between 1.0% and 1.5% for TRS-381 and between 1.5% and 2.0% for TRS-277. Photon beam calibrations using directly measured or calculated TPR20,10 from a percentage dose data at SSD = 100 cm were found to be indistinguishable. Considering that approximately 0.8% of the differences between TRS-398 and the NK-based protocols are caused by the change to the new type of standards, the remaining difference in absolute dose is due either to a close similarity in basic data or to a fortuitous cancellation of the discrepancies in data and type of chamber calibration. It is emphasized that the NK-ND,air and ND,w formalisms have very similar uncertainty when the same criteria are used for both procedures. Arguments are provided in support of the recommendation for a change in reference dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water.