Correlation Engine 2.0
Clear Search sequence regions

filter terms:
  • tg 51 (7)
  • Sizes of these terms reflect their relevance to your search.

    This study aimed to compare absolute calibration outputs based on the protocols of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Report Series (TRS)-398, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG)-51, and modified calibration approach. The electron beam output calibration followed the IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51 protocols, both of which required cylindrical chambers and parallel plates. However, the use of cylindrical chambers is not recommended at low energies because of the large fluence-correction factor. TG-51 recommended cross-calibration of the parallel-plate chamber against the cylindrical chamber in a high-energy electron beam. In 2020, an electron beam dosimetry modification was introduced that used a cylindrical ionisation chamber at all energies and updated the data for beam quality conversion factors. This modification provided a lower deviation than that reported in AAPM TG-51. Thus, the modified calibration based on TRS-398 was applied in the present study, which yielded results below the permissible tolerance. The beam calibration at 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15 MeV energies was carried out for two Elekta linear accelerators.. Electron beam dosimetry followed the AAPM TG-51 and TRS-398 protocols, and modified calibration were performed to measure the dose at the maximum depth expressed in dose/monitor units (cGy/MU). Charge-reading measurements were measured using ionisation chambers PTW 30013, IBA CC13, and Exradin A11. The average absorbed dose ratios were 1.004 and 1.009 using the modified calibration and TRS-398 and modified calibration and TG-51, respectively. Therefore, based on IAEA TRS-398, the results were below the tolerance limit (±2%). © 2023 IOP Publishing Ltd.


    Cica Yulinar, Muhamad Iqbal Assegab, Wahyu Edy Wibowo, Supriyanto Ardjo Pawiro. Modified calibration protocols in electron beam dosimetry: comparison with IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51. Biomedical physics & engineering express. 2023 Jul 24;9(5)

    PMID: 37442101

    View Full Text