4.6 Article

Evaluation of the water-equivalent characteristics of the SP34 plastic phantom for film dosimetry in a clinical linear accelerator

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293191

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study verified some confusing points about electron film dosimetry using white polystyrene suggested by international protocols. The results showed that white polystyrene has similar water-equivalent characteristics as presented in the international protocols.
In this study, some confusing points about electron film dosimetry using white polystyrene suggested by international protocols were verified using a clinical linear accelerator (LINAC). According to international protocol recommendations, ionometric measurements and film dosimetry were performed on an SP34 slab phantom at various electron energies. Scaling factor analysis using ionometric measurements yielded a depth scaling factor of 0.923 and a fluence scaling factor of 1.019 at an electron beam energy of <10 MeV (i.e., R-50 < 4.0 g/cm(2)). It was confirmed that the water-equivalent characteristics were similar because they have values similar to white polystyrene (i.e., depth scaling factor of 0.922 and fluence scaling factor of 1.019) presented in international protocols. Furthermore, percentage depth dose (PDD) curve analysis using film dosimetry showed that when the density thickness of the SP34 slab phantom was assumed to be water-equivalent, it was found to be most similar to the PDD curve measured using an ionization chamber in water as a reference medium. Therefore, we proved that the international protocol recommendation that no correction for measured depth dose is required means that no scaling factor correction for the plastic phantom is necessary. This study confirmed two confusing points that could occur while determining beam characteristics using electron film dosimetry, and it is expected to be used as basic data for future research on clinical LINACs.

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