Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 23, Number 3, 2018

Uncertainty in positioning ion chamber at reference depth for various water phantoms

Naoki Kinoshita, Hiroshi Oguchi, Toshiki Adachi, Hiroki Shioura, Hirohiko Kimura

Summary:

Background Uncertainty in the calibration of high-energy radiation sources is dependent on user and equipment type. Aim We evaluated the uncertainty in the positioning of a cylindrical chamber at a reference depth for reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams and the resulting uncertainty in the chamber readings for 6- and 10-MV photon beams. The aim was to investigate major contributions to the positioning uncertainty to reduce the uncertainty in calibration for external photon beam radiotherapy. Materials and methods The following phantoms were used: DoseView 1D, WP1D, 1D SCANNER, and QWP-07 as one-dimensional (1D) phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry; GRI-7632 as a phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve; and PTW type 41023 and QWP-04 as 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. The uncertainties were analyzed as per the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Results The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings ranged from 0.22 to 0.35 mm and 0.12–0.25%, respectively, among the phantoms (using a coverage factor k = 1 in both cases). The major contributions to positioning uncertainty are: definition of the origin for phantoms among users for the 1D phantoms for a vertical-beam geometry, water level adjustment among users for the phantom for a fixed waterproofing sleeve, phantom window deformation, and non-water material of the window for the 1D phantoms for a horizontal-beam geometry. Conclusion The positioning and resultant uncertainties in chamber readings exhibited minor differences among the seven phantoms. The major components of these uncertainties differed among the phantom types investigated.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2018; 23(3) : 199-206


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2