Study of the uncertainty in the determination of the absorbed dose to water during external beam radiotherapy calibration

Abstract

To achieve a good clinical outcome in radiotherapy treatment, a certain accuracy in the dose delivered to the patient is required. Therefore, it is necessary to keep the uncertainty in each of the steps of the process inside some acceptable values, which implies as low a global uncertainty as possible. The work reported here focused on the uncertainty evaluation of absorbed dose to water in the routine calibration for clinical beams in the range of energies used in external‐beam radiotherapy. With this aim, we considered various uncertainty components (corrected electrometer reading, calibration factor, beam quality correction factor, and reference conditions) associated with beam calibration. Results show a typical uncertainty in the determination of absorbed dose to water during beam calibration of approximately 1.3% for photon beams and 1.5% for electron beams (k=1 in both cases) when the ND,w formalism is used and kQ,Q0 is calculated theoretically. These values may vary depending on the uncertainty provided by the standards laboratory for calibration factor, which is shown in the work. For primary standards based on clinical linear accelerator beam energies, the uncertainty in this step of the process could be placed close to 1.0%. We also discuss the possibility of an uncertainty reduction with the adoption of the absorbed dose to water formalism as compared with the air kerma formalism.PACS numbers: 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Hv

Comparison and uncertainty evaluation of different calibration protocols and ionization chambers for low‐energy surface brachytherapy dosimetry

“…The electrometer calibration uncertainty was provided by PTW, the company in charge on checking periodically the electrometer stability. The associated uncertainty for the correction for pressure and temperature was evaluated according to Castro et al 23 The uncertainty introduced by the estimation of the depth of the effective point of measurement was evaluated according to the influence of a 0.1 mm shift, taking into account the inverse square law and a uniform probability distribution. The uncertainty introduced by the location of the x-ray virtual focus was evaluated considering an uncertainty for SSD of ±0.7 mm (see Sec.…”

On the implementation of a recently proposed dosimetric formalism to a robotic radiosurgery system

“…The type B component includes the uncertainty associated with the calibration procedure of the alanine pellets in the 60 Co beam, the difference in alanine response in the 60 Co and the MV beams, the correction for influence quantities ͑i.e., dose received during transport and signal fading͒, and the establishment of the reference conditions ͑i.e., 50 mm depth, SSD= 750 mm͒. The uncertainty in the establishment of the reference conditions is related to the dose uncertainty via the gradient of the depth dose distribution 25 and was calculated using: ͑a͒ A standard uncertainty in determining the SSD of u SSD = 0.29 mm ͑calculated assuming rectangular distribution and an uncertainty of Ϯ0.5 mm in positioning the x-ray source͒ and ͑b͒ a standard uncertainty in defining the reference depth of u depth = 0.12 mm ͑calculated assuming rectangular distribution and an uncertainty of Ϯ0.2 mm in determining the reference depth͒.…”

Direct megavoltage photon calibration service in Australia

“…A more recent analysis by Thwaites et al [22] concludes that 3 % standard uncertainty in the dose delivered to the patient can be taken as the “currently recommended general accuracy requirement”. Further discussion can be found in references [20–23]. These arguments support the need for more accurate absorbed dose standards.…”