On the wall perturbation correction for a parallel‐plate NACP‐02 chamber in clinical electron beams
Authors: Zink K. , Wulff J. 
Published: February 2011

Purpose

: In recent years, several Monte Carlo studies have been published concerning the perturbation corrections of a parallel‐plate chamber in clinical electron beams. In these studies, a strong depth dependence of the relevant correction factors ( and ) for depth beyond the reference depth is recognized and it has been shown that the variation with depth is sensitive to the choice of the chamber's effective point of measurement. Recommendations concerning the positioning of parallel‐plate ionization chambers in clinical electron beams are not the same for all current dosimetry protocols. The IAEA TRS‐398 as well as the IPEM protocol and the German protocol DIN 6800‐2 interpret the depth of measurement within the phantom as the water equivalent depth, i.e., the nonwater equivalence of the entrance window has to be accounted for by shifting the chamber by an amount . This positioning should ensure that the primary electrons traveling from the surface of the water phantom through the entrance window to the chamber's reference point sustain the same energy loss as the primary electrons in the undisturbed phantom. The objective of the present study is the determination of the shift for a NACP‐02 chamber and the calculation of the resulting wall perturbation correction as a function of depth. Moreover, the contributions of the different chamber walls to the wall perturbation correction are identified.

Methods:

The dose and fluence within the NACP‐02 chamber and a wall‐less air cavity is calculated using the Monte Carlo code EGSnrc in a water phantom at different depths for different clinical electron beams. In order to determine the necessary shift to account for the nonwater equivalence of the entrance window, the chamber is shifted in steps around the depth of measurement. The optimal shift is determined from a comparison of the spectral fluence within the chamber and the bare cavity. The wall perturbation correction is calculated as the ratio between doses for the complete chamber and a wall‐less air cavity.

Results:

The high energy part of the fluence spectra within the chamber strongly varies even with small chamber shifts, allowing the determination of within micrometers. For the NACP‐02 chamber a shift results. This value is independent of the energy of the primary electrons as well as of the depth within the phantom and it is in good agreement with the value recommended in the German dosimetry protocol. Applying this shift, the calculated wall perturbation correction as a function of depth is varying less than 1% from zero up to the half value depth for electron energies in the range of 6–21 MeV. The remaining depth dependence can mainly be attributed to the scatter properties of the entrance window. When neglecting the nonwater equivalence of the entrance window, the variation of with depth is up to 10% and more, especially for low electron energies.

Conclusions:

The variation of the wall perturbation correction for the NACP‐02 chamber in clinical electron beams strongly depends on the positioning of the chamber. Applying a shift toward the focus ensures that the primary electron spectrum within the chamber bears the largest resemblance to the fluence of a wall‐less cavity. Hence, the influence of the chamber walls on the perturbation correction can be separated out and the residual variation of with depth is minimized.