4.6 Article

Characterization of the Exradin W1 scintillator for use in radiotherapy

期刊

MEDICAL PHYSICS
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 297-304

出版社

AMER ASSOC PHYSICISTS MEDICINE AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1118/1.4903757

关键词

scintillator dosimeter; radiation therapy measurements; dosimeter characterization

资金

  1. Barcelona Board of the Spanish Association Against Cancer (AECC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the main characteristics of the Exradin W1 scintillator as a dosimeter and to estimate measurement uncertainties when used in radiotherapy. Methods: We studied the calibration procedure, energy and modality dependence, short-term repeatability, dose-response linearity, angular dependence, temperature dependence, time to reach thermal equilibrium, dose-rate dependence, water-equivalent depth of the effective measurement point, and long-term stability. An uncertainty budget was derived for relative and absolute dose measurements in photon and electron beams. Results: Exradin W1 showed a temperature dependence of -0.225% degrees C-1. The loss of sensitivity with accumulated dose decreased with use. The sensitivity of Exradin W1 was energy independent for high-energy photon and electron beams. All remaining dependencies of Exradin W1 were around or below 0.5%, leading to an uncertainty budget of about 1%. When a dual channel electrometer with automatic trigger was not used, timing effects became significant, increasing uncertainties by one order of magnitude. Conclusions: The Exradin W1 response is energy independent for high energy x-rays and electron beams, and only one calibration coefficient is needed. A temperature correction factor should be applied to keep uncertainties around 2% for absolute dose measurements and around 1% for relative measurements in high-energy photon and electron beams. The Exradin W1 scintillator is an excellent alternative to detectors such as diodes for relative dose measurements. (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据