Calculated absorbed‐dose ratios, TG51/TG21, for most widely used cylindrical and parallel‐plate ion chambers over a range of photon and electron energies
Authors: Tailor R. C. , Hanson W. F. 
Published: July 2002

Task Group 51 (TG51), of the Radiation Therapy Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), has developed a calibration protocol for high‐energy photon and electron therapy beams based on absorbed dose standards. This protocol is intended to replace the air‐kerma based protocol developed by an earlier AAPM task group (TG21). Conversion to the newer protocol introduces a change in the determined absorbed dose. In this work, the change in dose is expressed as the ratio of the doses (TG51/TG21) based on the two protocols. Dose is compared at the TG‐51 reference depths of 10 cm for photons and for electrons. Dose ratios are presented for a variety of ion chambers over a range of photon and electron energies. The TG51/TG21 dose ratios presented here are based on the dosimetry factors provided by the two protocols and the chamber‐specific absorbed dose and exposure calibration factors and provided by the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL) at The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). As such, the values presented here represent the expected discrepancies between the two protocols due only to changes in the dosimetry parameters and the differences in chamber‐specific dose and air‐kerma standards. These values are independent of factors such as measurement uncertainties, setup errors, and inconsistencies arising from the mix of different phantoms and ion chambers for the two protocols. Therefore, these ratios may serve as a guide for institutions performing measurements for the switch from TG21‐to‐TG51 based calibration. Any significant deviation in the ratio obtained from measurements versus those presented here should prompt a review to identify possible errors and inconsistencies. For all cylindrical chambers included here, the TG51/TG21 dose ratios are the same within ±0.6%, irrespective of the make and model of the chamber, for each photon and electron beam included. Photon beams show the TG51/TG21 dose ratios decreasing with energy, whereas electrons exhibit the opposite trend. The dose ratio for photons is near 1.00 at 18 mV increasing to near 1.01 at 4 mV while the dose ratio for electrons is near 1.02 at 20 MeV decreasing only 0.5% to near 1.015 at 6 MeV. For parallel‐plate chambers, the situation is complicated by the two possible methods of obtaining calibration factors: through an ADCL or through a cross‐comparison with a cylindrical chamber in a high‐energy electron beam. For some chambers, the two methods lead to significantly different calibration factors, which in turn lead to significantly different TG51/TG21 results for the same chamber. Data show that if both and are obtained from the same source, namely an ADCL or a cross comparison, the TG51/TG21 results for parallel‐plate chambers are similar to those for cylindrical chambers. However, an inconsistent set of calibration factors, i.e., using from an ADCL but from a cross comparison or vice versa, can introduce an additional uncertainty up to 2.5% in the TG51/TG21 dose ratios.