Investigation of perturbation correction factors for PTW semiflex 0.

125 cm3 chamber with EGSnrc Monte Carlo transport code.

Contributors M. Anwarul Islam

SQUARE Hospitals Ltd, Dhaka anwar.amch@yahoo.com

&

G. A. Zakaria
Gummersbach Hospital, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Cologne, Germany

Objectives

To calculate the perturbation correction factors for a specific chamber To estimate the statistical uncertainty To compare the value calculated by Monte Carlo with theoretical/ experimental value

Spencer-Attix Cavity theory

Absorbed-dose to water dosimetry uses the Spencer-Attix cavity theory to relate the absorbed dose to the gas in the ion chamber, Dgas, to the dose to the surrounding phantom medium, Dmed, by the following expression:

D med

_ med L = D gas gas

(1)

is the ratio of the spectrum averaged restricted mass collision stopping power for the medium to that of the gas.

_ med L gas

Cont.

In case of radiotherapy dosimetry, water phantom and air filled ionization chamber normally be used. So, the modified cavity theory as follows:

D water
_ L
water air

_ L = D air

water air

(1)

averaged restricted mass collision stopping power ratio

Cont.
Spencer-Attix cavity theory has three necessary assumptions: (1) the cavity does not change the electron spectrum in the medium (2) the dose in the cavity comes from electrons that enter the cavity and not from those that are created within the cavity (3) charged particle equilibrium (CPE) will be exist Unluckily, the ion chambers do not satisfy the above assumptions

Why not satisfy the assumptions?

Presence of central electrode in ion chamber which is not equivalent material with air. Need correction factor for central electrode, Pcel Presence ion chamber wall which is differ from air. Need correction factor for wall, Pwall

Cont.
Presence of chamber stem in the phantom Need correction factor for stem, Pstem Presence of air in ion chamber which is low dense material comparatively with water. Electron spectrum will be changed due to this air cavity in the phantom. Need correction factor for spectrum change, Prepl

Cont.

Finally, Spencer-Attix cavity theory with all over perturbation factor followed by equation (1) is
_ water L = D air Pcel Pstem Pwall Prepl air

D water

( 2)

Cont.
The value of perturbation factors are energy dependent Each chamber should have separate correction factors for energy basis but it is quite impossible, expensive and time consuming. PSDL / SSDL choice a specific energy (60Co) for individual chambers to measure chamber correction factor. Need additional correction factor, KQ

Materials and Method

PTW semiflex 0.125 cm3 ionization chamber Model 31010 Wall material = PMMA Wall material density = 1.19 g/cm3 Wall thickness = 0.55 mm Central electrode = Aluminum Aluminum density = 2.69g/cm3

Cont.
Electrode diameter = 1.1 mm Length of electrode = 5 mm Thickness of graphite coat = 0.15 mm Graphite density = 0.82g/cm3 Radius of sensitive volume=2.75 mm Length of sensitive volume = 6.5 mm

Cont.
0.5

Graphite coat

0.69

PMMA

Electrode

0.55

Air cavity Fig.1: Schematic figure of a PTW semiflex 0.125 cm3 ion chamber

Monte Carlo codes

EGSnrc Monte Carlo codes are used to calculate all factors The EGSnrc codes introduced by National Research Council (NRC) of Canada The NRC grants the user a non-transferable, non-exclusive license to use this system free of charge only for non-commercial research or educational purposes.

Cont.
60Co

spectrum was used for all calculation SSD was = 80 cm Water depth of calculation = 5 cm Field size 10 cm diameter 20cm20cm20cm water phantom was used

Cont.
Photon cutoff energy was 0.001MeV Electron cutoff energy was 0.521MeV 109 particle histories were simulated for each calculation XCOM Photon Cross Sections data are used from NIST (published by Hubbell et al).

Calculation of Pelec

Dose calculation to the chamber effective point of measurement with central electrode, Delec Dose calculation on chamber effective point of measurement without central electrode, Dnoelec

Pelec = Dnoelec / Delec

Calculation of Pelec
A

Effective point of measurement *

PTW semiflex chamber with central electrode

B

* PTW semiflex chamber with no central electrode

Pelec = DB / DA

Calculation of Pwall

Dose calculation on chamber effective point of measurement without central electrode with air filled, Dwall Dose calculation on chamber effective point of measurement without central electrode and wall, Dnowall The existing wall material replaced by water for Dnowall calculation

Pwall = Dnowall / Dwall

Calculation of Pwall
C * Air filled cavity PTW semiflex chamber with only wall D * Air filled cavity PTW semiflex chamber with only wall Effective point of measurement Effective point of measurement

Pwall = DD / DC

Calculation of Prepl

Dose calculation on chamber effective point of measurement without central electrode and wall with water vapor filled, Dsteam Dose calculation on chamber effective point of measurement without chamber in water medium at small voxel, Drepl The existing chamber material replaced by water for Drepl calculation

Prepl = Drepl / Dstream

Calculation of Prepl
E * Effective point of measurement Water vapor

Chamber cavity filled with water vapor Effective point of measurement F * Calculation of dose at small voxel in water

Prepl = DF / DE

Results and Discussions

The calculated value Pwall is found to be 1.008 0.6% This is in good agreement with the published value 1.001 in TRS-398 with PTW 31003 flexible ion chamber.

Cont.

The calculated value Pcel is found to be 0.995 0.7% This is in good agreement with the published value 0.993 in TRS-398 with PTW 31003 flexible ion chamber.

Cont.

The calculated value of Prepl is found to be 0.992 0.4% The AAPMs TG-51 and TG-21 dosimetry protocols use a value of Prepl = 0.992 for a cylindrical chamber of inner diameter of 6 mm in a 60Co beam. This value is from the work of Cunningham and Sontag who derived Prepl based on analytical calculations and experiments. For the same quantity the IAEAs TRS-398 Codes of Practice use a value of 0.988 which is based on the measured data of Johansson et al.