Phys Med Biol. May 7;48(9) A dosimetry study comparing NCS report-5, IAEA TRS, AAPM TG and IAEA TRS in three clinical. poster workshop Determination of fluence scaling factors for plastic water for high-energy electron beams using IAEA TRS code of practice. A dosimetry study comparing NCS report-5, IAEA TRS, AAPM TG and IAEA TRS in three clinical electron beam energies.
|Published (Last):||4 October 2008|
|PDF File Size:||14.57 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.32 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Division of Human Health
Click here to close this overlay, or press the “Escape” key on your keyboard. IPEM’s aim is to promote the advancement of physics and engineering applied to medicine and biology for the public benefit.
Its members are professionals working in healthcare, education, industry and research.
IPEM publishes scientific journals and books and organises conferences to disseminate knowledge and support members in their development. It sets and advises on standards for the practice, education and training of scientists and engineers working in healthcare to secure an effective and appropriate workforce. Get permission to re-use this article.
Received 4 February Published 10 April Hugo Palmans et al Phys. Buy this article in print. Sign up for new issue notifications. New codes of practice for reference dosimetry in clinical high-energy photon and electron beams have been published recently, to replace the air kerma based codes of practice that have determined 3381 dosimetry of these beams for the past twenty years.
Measurements were performed in three clinical electron beam energies using two NEtype cylindrical chambers, two Markus-type plane-parallel chambers and two NACPtype plane-parallel chambers. Dosimetry based on direct calibrations of all chambers in 60 Co was investigated, as well as dosimetry based on cross-calibrations of plane-parallel chambers against a trrs chamber in a high-energy electron beam.
Dosimetry Codes of Practice and Worksheets – IAEA NAHU
Furthermore, 60 Co perturbation factors for plane-parallel chambers were derived. The results thus show that neither the chamber-to-chamber variations, nor the obtained absolute dose values are significantly altered by changing from air kerma based dosimetry to absorbed dose based dosimetry when using calibration factors obtained from the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry, Ghent, Belgium.
The values of the 60 Co perturbation factor for plane-parallel chambers k att k m for the air kerma based and p wall for the absorbed dose based codes of practice that are obtained from comparing the results based on 60 Co calibrations and cross-calibrations are within the experimental uncertainties in agreement with the results from other investigators.