首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics >Comparison between TG‐51 and TG‐21: Calibration of photon and electron beams in water using cylindrical chambers
【2h】

Comparison between TG‐51 and TG‐21: Calibration of photon and electron beams in water using cylindrical chambers

机译:TG‐51和TG‐21之间的比较:使用圆柱室校准水中的光子和电子束

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

A new calibration protocol, developed by the AAPM Task Group 51 (TG‐51) to replace the TG‐21 protocol, is based on an absorbed‐dose to water standard and calibration factor (ND,w), while the TG‐21 protocol is based on an exposure (or air‐kerma) standard and calibration factor (Nx). Because of differences between these standards and the two protocols, the results of clinical reference dosimetry based on TG‐51 may be somewhat different from those based on TG‐21. The Radiological Physics Center has conducted a systematic comparison between the two protocols, in which photon and electron beam outputs following both protocols were compared under identical conditions. Cylindrical chambers used in this study were selected from the list given in the TG‐51 report, covering the majority of current manufacturers. Measured ratios between absorbed‐dose and air‐kerma calibration factors, derived from the standards traceable to the NIST, were compared with calculated values using the TG‐21 protocol. The comparison suggests that there is roughly a 1% discrepancy between measured and calculated ratios. This discrepancy may provide a reasonable measure of possible changes between the absorbed‐dose to water determined by TG‐51 and that determined by TG‐21 for photon beam calibrations. The typical change in a 6 MV photon beam calibration following the implementation of the TG‐51 protocol was about 1%, regardless of the chamber used, and the change was somewhat smaller for an 18 MV photon beam. On the other hand, the results for 9 and 16 MeV electron beams show larger changes up to 2%, perhaps because of the updated electron stopping power data used for the TG‐51 protocol, in addition to the inherent 1% discrepancy presented in the calibration factors. The results also indicate that the changes may be dependent on the electron energy.PACS number(s): 87.66.–a, 87.53.–j
机译:AAPM任务组51(TG-51)取代TG-21协议开发了一种新的校准协议,该协议基于吸收剂量水标准和校准因子(ND,w),而TG-21协议基于曝光(或空气比释动能)标准和校准系数(Nx)。由于这些标准与这两种方案之间的差异,基于TG-51的临床参考剂量测定结果可能与基于TG-21的那些有所不同。放射物理中心对这两种方案进行了系统的比较,其中在相同条件下比较了遵循两种方案的光子和电子束输出。本研究中使用的圆柱腔室选自TG-51报告中给出的列表,涵盖了当前大多数制造商。使用TG-21协议将源自可追溯至NIST的标准品的吸收剂量和空气比释动能校正因子之间的比例与计算值进行比较。比较表明,测得的和计算的比率之间大约有1%的差异。这种差异可以合理地衡量由TG-51确定的吸收剂量与由TG-21确定的用于光子束校准的吸收剂量之间的变化。不管使用哪种腔室,在执行TG-51协议后,6 MV光子束校准的典型变化约为1%,而对于18 MV光子束,该变化较小。另一方面,9和16 MeV电子束的结果显示最大变化高达2%,这可能是因为TG-51协议使用了更新的电子停止功率数据,此外在电子束中存在固有的1%差异。校准因子。结果还表明,变化可能取决于电子能量。PACS数:87.66.–a,87.53.–j

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号