A proposed code of practice for the determination of absorbed dose for X-rays below 300 kV generating potential

Kilovoltage x-ray dosimetry—an experimental comparison between different dosimetry protocols

“…Some indication is given by the variation of the k ch factor by about 1% within the same range of field sizes presented by Perrin et al (2001) (cf. the IPEMB protocol regarding the definition of the k ch factor; Klevenhagen et al, 1996). However, in the study by Perrin et al (2001), the field size variation of the k ch factor was determined in a much softer beam quality (a HVL of 0.56 mm Al) than the beam used in the present study.…”

“…Reference conditions in which the detector is placed at a depth in water yields the absorbed dose to water at that position. Therefore, relative dosimetric measurements are required in order to compare with conditions (1) and (2) which have been discussed in detail by Ma et al, 1998. In the present study, dosimetric measurements according to the recommendations in the following protocols are presented and analyzed: DIN 6809 (1988), DIN 6809-5 (1996), NCS-10 (Grimbergen et al, 1997), IPEMB (Klevenhagen et al, 1996) with addendum (Aukett et al, 2005), IAEA TRS-398 (Andreo et al, 2000) and AAPM TG-61 (Ma et al, 2001). Superseded dosimetry protocols were not included in the analysis, except for the IAEA TRS-277 protocol (Andreo et al, 1987(Andreo et al, , updated 1997, which was included due to its historical importance and continued use.…”

The Bland–Altman analysis: Does it have a role in assessing radiation dosimeter performance relative to an established standard?

“…The ionisation chambers used in the comparison were the PTW Markus and Roos parallel plate and the PTW 31006 PinPoint ionisation chambers (PTW-Freiburg GmbH, Freiburg, Germany). The effective point of measurement for the cylindrical chambers was taken to be at the geometric centre and, for the parallel plate chambers, at the top of the cavity directly beneath the front window of the chamber (Andreo et al, 2000;Klevenhagen et al, 1996). All depth doses were measured using a 30 cm source to surface distance (SSD) applicator with a diameter of 6 cm.…”

Evaluation of a micro ionization chamber for dosimetric measurements in image-guided preclinical irradiation platforms

“…For users with interest in evaluating dose at certain depth instead of at the surface of the phantom, which is the case for targeted irradiations in IGSARP devices, CoPs recommend applying the in-phantom method for determination of absorbed dose to water at 2 cm depth. For that purpose, equations such as the one presented by the IPEMB code of practice (Klevenhagen et al 1996), can be followed:…”

“…There are a significant number of examples of preclinical studies involving irradiation of cells and small animal models, with direct impact in supporting radiotherapy clinical trials and particularly those contributing to the generalization of personalized targeted therapeutic approaches (Dreyfuss et al 2021), (Sotiropoulos et al 2021), (Benci et al 2016). Dosimetric evaluation of irradiation devices in the kilovoltage range, delivering clinical radiotherapy treatments, is well-documented by several standard dosimetry protocols or codes of practice (CoPs): AAPM TG-61 (Ma et al 2001), IAEA TRS-398 andTRS-277 (IAEA 2006, IAEA 1987) and IPEMB (Klevenhagen et al 1996). A comprehensive comparison of the data used by different CoP has also been published (Peixoto and Andreo 2000).…”