Search

A multi-layer ionization chamber (MLIC) which consists of a stack of parallel plate-type ionization chambers in which the parallel configuration is in the depth direction was developed at the National Institute of Radiological Science (NIRS) and has been used as a field dosimeter for MU calibration since 2002. Although the MLIC can measure depth dose distributions at one time, a correction is needed to obtain an accurate dose at the center of the spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) in a water phantom. We attributed the observed difference between the correct dose at the center of the SOBP and the measured dose to the lack of water equivalence of the MLIC. In order to overcome this problem, a new MLIC was developed. It consists of polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) plates and graphite electrodes instead of flame retardant type 4 (FR4) and copper electrodes. The calibration coefficients of the MLICs were obtained by 160 MeV proton beam irradiation. For carbon-ion beams, the PMMA type MLIC has the capability to measure depth dose distributions in the water phantom with less than 2% error, including the fragment tail region.

The calibration coefficients of a parallel plate ionization chamber are examined by comparing the coefficients obtained through three methods: a calculation from a 60Co calibration coefficient, N(D, omega, 60Co), a cross-calibration of a parallel plate ionization chamber using a cylindrical ionization chamber at the plateau region of a mono-energetic beam and a cross-calibration of the chamber using a cylindrical chamber at the middle of the SOBP of the therapeutic beams. This paper also examines reference conditions for determining absorbed dose to water in the cases of therapeutic carbon and proton beams. In the dose calibration procedure recommended by IAEA, irradiation fields should be larger than 10 cm in diameter and the water phantom should extend by at least 5 cm beyond each side of the field. These recommendations are experimentally verified for proton and carbon beams. For proton beams, the calibration coefficients obtained by these three methods approximately agreed. For carbon beams, the calibration coefficients obtained by the second method were about 1.0% larger than those obtained by the third method, and the calibration coefficients obtained by cross-calibration using 290 MeV/u beams were 0.5% lower than those obtained using 400 MeV/u beams. The calibration coefficient obtained by the first method agreed roughly with the results obtained by SOBP beams.