Comparison of two methods of therapy level calibration at 60Co gamma beams

• Published in: Physics in medicine & biology 1998-10, Vol.43 (10), p.2729-2740
• Main Authors: Bjerke, H, Järvinen, H, Grimbergen, T W M, Grindborg, J-E, Chauvenet, B, Czap, L, Ennow, K, Moretti, C, Rocha, P
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Air; Applied radiobiology (equipment, dosimetry...); Biological and medical sciences; Biological effects of radiation; Calibration; Cobalt Radioisotopes; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Gamma Rays; Radiation, Ionizing; Radiometry - methods; Radiometry - statistics & numerical data; Radiotherapy - methods; Reference Standards; Tissues, organs and organisms biophysics; Water
• ISSN: 0031-9155; 1361-6560
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/43/10/004

The accuracy and traceability of the calibration of radiotherapy dosimeters is of great concern to those involved in the delivery of radiotherapy. It has been proposed that calibration should be carried out directly in terms of absorbed dose to water, instead of using the conventional and widely applied quantity of air kerma. In this study, the faithfulness in disseminating standards of both air kerma and absorbed dose to water were evaluated, through comparison of both types of calibration for three types of commonly used radiotherapy dosimeters at 60Co gamma beams at a few secondary and primary standard dosimetry laboratories (SSDLs and PSDLs). A supplementary aim was to demonstrate the impact which the change in the method of calibration would have on clinical dose measurements at the reference point. Within the estimated uncertainties, both the air kerma and absorbed dose to water calibration factors obtained at different laboratories were regarded as consistent. As might be expected, between the SSDLs traceable to the same PSDL the observed differences were smaller (less than 0.5%) than between PSDLs or SSDLs traceable to different PSDLs (up to 1.5%). This can mainly be attributed to the reported differences between the primary standards. The calibration factors obtained by the two methods differed by up to about 1.5% depending on the primary standards involved and on the parameters of calculation used for 60Co gamma radiation. It is concluded that this discrepancy should be settled before the new method of calibration at 60Co gamma beams in terms of absorbed dose to water is taken into routine use.