Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Influence of the variation of energy spectra with depth in the dosimetry of 192Ir using LiF TLD

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. 1988 Phys. Med. Biol. 33 1159 (http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9155/33/10/005) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details: IP Address: 202.170.57.245 The article was downloaded on 03/01/2012 at 03:12

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Phys. Med. Biol., 1988, Vol. 33, No 10, 1159-1170. Printed in the U K

Influence of the variation of energy spectra with depth in the dosimetry of I9*Itusing LiF TLD
A S Meigooni, J A Meli and R Nath
Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Therapeutic Radiology, CT 06510, USA Received 20 January 1988, in final form 4 May 1988 New Haven,

Abstract. Absolute dose measurements around low activity seeds used in brachytherapy are difficult to perform with ionisation chambers. The physical size of the chamber does not allow good resolution close to the seeds and the ionisation current generated is very low. Small thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDS) overcome these problems but the energy dependence of their response should be considered. In this work, dose in polystyrene was I9'Ir source (370 GBq) of a remote measured at several distances from the high activity afterloading device using an ionisation chamber and LiF TLD chips. These data show that over a range of 1-10 cm from the source the sensitivity of LiF varies by up to 8.5%. This is attributed to the higher response of LiF to the lower photon energies, and to the shift of the photon spectrum to lower energies with increasing depth. The sensitivity of LiF to '921r was also calculated by weighting the energy-dependent response of LiF by the Monte Carlo calculated photon spectra. The calculations give a similar change in sensitivity with distance from the source.

1. Introduction

Measurements of dose rate around brachytherapy sources are difficult because of steep dose gradients in the vicinity of these sources. In addition, low dose rates make it impractical to employasmallvolumeionisationchamberforthesemeasurements because the ionisation current is very low compared with leakage current and background noise. Larger volume ionisation chambers have adequate signal-to-background but poor spatial resolution near the sources because of the high dose rate gradients. For thesereasons,dosesaroundbrachytherapysourcesareusuallymeasured with small solid-state dosimeters such as diodes and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDS). Diodes and TLDS have to be calibrated against an NBS calibrated ionisation chamber if they are to be used for absolute dose measurement. For a high dose rate source the response of solid-state dosimeters can be directly compared with the dose rate measured with an ionisation chamber. However, for conventional low dose rate brachytherapy sources, calibration is usually performed indirectly.In this method sensitivity (response per unit dose) of TLDS is measured with a calibrated high dose rate photon beam (such as 6oCo) andthencorrectedforthedifferenceinresponsetotheenergy of the brachytherapy source versus that of the calibration beam. The sensitivity of LiF (LiF-100) to 30 keV photons from 1251 is about 40% higher than for 6oCo (Hartman 1983, Weaver 1984). Since the photon spectrum of '"I does not change much with depth in phantom (Dale 1982, Meigooni 1988) a single energy correction of the sensitivity of LiF can be used at all depths. However, for 1921r, the photon spectrum shifts significantly toward lower energies with increasing distance in 0031-9155/88/101159+ 12$02.50 @ 1988 IOP Publishing Ltd 1159

1160

A S Meigooni, J A Meli and

R Nath

phantom and hence there could be a depth-dependent correction the sensitivity. In of this work, sensitivity of LiF is studied as a function of energy and distance from an 192 Ir source in a phantom.

2. Materials andmethods
2.1. LiF
TLD

An elaborate protocol for TLD measurements was followed and is described here briefly. A batch of 100 commercially available LiF TLD chips with dimensions of 3.1 mm x 3.1 mm x 0.89 mm (TLD-100, Teflon chips, Harshaw Co.) was used in this work. Before each experiment, TLDS were annealed in an aged aluminium tray at 400 "C for 1 h and then kept at room temperature for 45 min followed by 80 "C heating for 24 h. After irradiation and a waiting period of at least 24 h, the responses of the TLD chips were measured with a Harshaw reader (Models TLD 2000A and 2000B). Responses of several chips irradiated simultaneously were averaged to improve the statistical quality of the experimental data. In this process, the response of individual chips was corrected for differencesintheirphysicalpropertiessuch as mass, size, etc,usingachipfactor described in 5 2.1.1.
2.1.1. Chip factor. For an ideal batch of TLDS, chips would give the same response all when exposed to the same amount radiation. However, differences in their physical of properties (mass, size, etc) make the responses different from one another; therefore the response of individual chips was compared with the average response of the entire batch. These relative responses, termed chip factors, were determined by irradiating the whole batch of chips with a broad beam (20 cm X 20 cm) of 4 MV x-rays from a radiotherapy accelerator (Varian Clinac 4). The chips were in a square matrix of holes machined in a 25 cm X 25 cm slab of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA, commercially knownasLucite,PlexiglasorPerspex). Beam flatnessacross thechip matrix was verified by simultaneously irradiating a prepackaged portal verification film (Kodak, XPV-2). To avoid any confusion, the array numbers of the chip matrix were used as identification numbers of the chips. The chip factors were determined three times and the chips which showed more than a 2% variation were discarded. For all others, the chip factors are the average of the three determinations. It has been observed throughout these experiments that the chip factors were very stable. Therefore, their values were checked every 6 months. All TLD responses presented in this work were corrected using appropriate chip factors.

2.2. Sensitivity of LiF

TLD

Response of the LiF TLDS per unit dose to water, defined here as sensitivity, is used for determination of absorbed dose. The sensitivity of LiF varies with photon energy and was measured for differentqualityx-raybeamsinthe air and for the photon spectrum of '921r at different depths in a polystyrene phantom. These measurements are described in the following sections. 2.2.1. Variation of sensitivity with photon energy in air. The sensitivity of LiF chips was determined for 60, 80, 100 and 250 kV and 4 MV x-ray beams and an I9*Ir source. For

The dosimetry of 19*Ir using LiF

TLD

1161

the orthovoltage energies and the '921r source, the chips were irradiated in air simultaneouslywiththeNBScalibratedSpokaschamberwhoseionisationchargewas converted to dose-to-water-in-air following the ICRU (1973) protocol. The measured exposure-in-airwasconverted todose-to-waterusingtheexposure-to-dosefactor (f-factor) of 0.885, 0.885, 0.885, 0.93 cGy R" for 60, 80, 100 and 250 kV x-ray beams, respectively. These values were obtainedfromthetable off-factors(Johnsand Cunningham 1983) for the monoenergetic equivalent the x-ray beams obtained from of the half value layers measuredwith narrow beam geometry. For the 4 MV x-ray beam, the chips were irradiated at dm,, in phantom, and dose was calculated according to the AAPM protocol (1983) from the charge collected with an NBS calibrated thimble chamber. Responses of the LiF as a function of dose-to-water were used to determine the sensitivity of LiF for each photon beam. The sensitivities were then related to the monoenergetic equivalent of each x-ray beam. 2.2.2. Variation of sensitivity with depth in phantom for 19*Ir source
2.2.2.1. Measurements. LiF TLD chips and a 0.3 cm3 ionisation chamber ( w w ) having an NBS 6oCo exposure calibration factor simultaneously irradiated in a polystyrene were phantomat severaldistancesfromthehighactivity 1921rsource(370GBq) ofa GammaMed remote IIi afterloading system. Polystyrene has been shown be to equivalent to water for lg21r(Meli et al 1987). A schematic diagram ofthe experimental set-up is shown in figure 1. Thegoalofthesemeasurementswas tocomparethe responses of LiF TLD with the energy-independent response of the ionisation chamber at depths of1 to 10 cm inthephantom.Toestablishthattheionisationchamber response is energy independent, it was compared against a Spokas chamber which has an NBS calibration for HVLS ranging from 0.36 mm A1 to 5.25 mm Cu. The response of the 0.3 cm3 chamber was found to be constant to better than 2% over the energy

Gamma Med

Figure 1. Top view of the arrangement used to measure the response of LiF as a function of distance from an '921r source. A 0.3 cm3 ionisation chamber and five LiF chips arranged in a circle of 1.5 cm radius were irradiated simultaneously in a polystyrene phantom with TLD chips and chamber centre at the same depth.

1162

A S Meigooni, J A Meli and R Nath

range of the 1921r spectrum. Therefore, the ''CO calibration factor of this chamber was used in converting ionisation charge to exposure for the I9*Ir spectrum. As shown in figure 1, the LiF chips were placed in holes around the ionisation chamber with thechip'scentreatthesame depthasthechamber centre. Small polystyrene plugs were used to fill the holes on top of the chips. Ideally the ionisation chamber and TLDS should be at the same distance from the source. However, with the source 1 cm from the centre of the dosimeter arrangement, the chips and chamber would receive significantly different dosesduetotheirdifferentdistancesfromthe source. To reduce this effect, an air gap of 10 cmwas usedbetweenthe phantom surface and '921r source, as depicted in figure 2. The influence of this air gap on the photon spectrum, and hence on the LiF response, was investigated by measuring the LiF and ionisation chamber responses at a depth of 10 cm for different size air gaps. Table 1 shows that 5 cm and 10 cm air gaps have a negligible effect (less than 1.5%) on the ratio of the response of LiF chips to that of the chamber as compared with no air gap. Therefore, the measurements of LiF sensitivity as a function of distance in

Gornrno Med

A r gap

Figure 2. Side view of the arrangement of the source and detectors in phantom. Introducing a large air gap between the source and phantom reduces the difference in source-chip and source-chamber distances. To demonstrate that no perturbations are introduced the gap, LiF chips and the ionisation chamber were by placed at 10 cm depth and irradiated in full phantom and with a 5 and 10 cm air gap. The response of the LiF per unit dose was unaffected by the gap as shown in table 1.

Table 1. Effect of air gap on the response of LiF. The depth in polystyrene, and air gap, d ' are shown in figure 4.

Depth in polystyrene, d (cm)

10

Air gap, d' (cm)

0 5
10

d (Response with air gap, ' ) (Response with no air gap)

1.000 1.010 1.012

10
10

The dosimetry of

l9*Zr

using LiF

TLD

1163

phantom reported in this work were performed using an air gap of 10 cm. With this 10 cm air gap, it has been found that the correction for the finite size of the dosimeters is less than 0.1O/O. At each depth in the phantom the charge collected by the ionisation chamber was convertedtodose-to-wateraccordingtotheICRUprotocol(1973).Themeasured exposures in polystyrenewereconvertedtodose-to-waterinpolystyreneusing the $factor determined as a function of depth. These $factors were obtained from the mass energy absorption coefficient of water and air, calculated by the Monte Carlogenerated photon spectrum in polystyrene phantom (discussed in 9 2.2.2.2). Values of the $factors were found to be 0.970, 0.968 and 0.966 cGy R" at depths of 1, 5 and 10 cm, respectively. The sensitivity of LiF at each depth is simply its response per unit dose-to-water at that depth. 2.2.2.2. Monte Carlo calculations. Photon energy spectra were calculated for distances of 1, 5 and 10cm in the polystyrene phantomfroman '921r sourceusingthe ITS (Integrated Tiger Series) Monte Carlo codes (Halblieb and Mehlhorn 1984). The ITS series is an expansion of the ETRAN (Berger and Seltzer 1973) allowing code a multidimension and multimedia phantom. This (ITS) series is a combination of three codes: (1) TIGER, for one-dimensional calculations; (2) CYLTRAN, for calculations in cylindrical geometry; and (3) ACCEPT, for any complex geometry. These codes incorporate photon and electron transport in the energy range of 1.0 keV to 1.0 GeV. In this work, calculations were performed in a cylindrical phantom using the CYLTRAN section of the ITS code. All the calculations were done on a MicroVaX I1 computer operating under the Micro VMS operating system, version 4.3. Monte Carlo calculations were performed for an isotropic point source with no encapsulation, and with 0.5 mm standard stainless steel encapsulation. The source was centered on the axis of a cylindrical polystyrene phantom of 10 cm length and 15 cm radius to provide afull scattering situation. Photon spectra were obtained under these full scatter conditions for energy binsof 20 keV width, in 2 mm thick cylindrical shells with 1, 5 and 10 cm radii. To preserve the property of a point source, the length of the shellat1 cm distance from the source was only 4 mm. At larger distances the length of the shells was increased to maintain an approximately constant solid angle from the source. A variance less than 5% was obtained for 200 000 histories divided of into 20 batches. The photon spectrum emitted by 1921r and used in these calculations, shown in table 2, was obtained from Amersham (1982). The effect of the 0.5 mm standard stainlesssteelencapsulation on thephoton spectrum at each calculation depth was found to be negligible. Sensitivity of LiF to the Ig2Ir spectrum at each depth was calculated by weighting the energy-dependent sensitivity by the corresponding energy fluence. The photon energy spectra were alsoused to calculate massenergyabsorption coefficients and exposure-to-dose conversion factors ($factors) at selected depths.

3. Results 3.1. Measurements

Figure 3 shows the response of LiF chips measured as a function of dose for 60, 80, 100, 250kV, 4 MV x-ray beams and also for I9*Ir. The slope of these straight lines gives the sensitivity of LiF for the corresponding photon beam. Normalising these

1164

A S Meigooni, J A Meli and R Nath

Table 2. Energy spectrum of '921r seeds.
Average number of photons per

Energy disintegration (keV)

201 206 283 296 308 316 374 416 468 484 489 589 604 612 884 100.00 Total

Fraction of total
(% 1

0.004 0.034 0.003 0.296 0.307 0.827 0.007 0.006 0.470 0.029 0.003 0.044 0.082 0.053 0.003 2.168

0.18 1.57 0.14 13.65 14.16 38.14 0.32 0.28 21.68 1.34 0.14 2.03 3.78 2.44 0.14

sensitivities to that of a 4 MV x-ray beam gives the relative sensitivity shown in figure 4, as a function of the monoenergetic equivalent of the x-ray beams. These data show that the sensitivity of LiF to low energy photons is about 40% higher than to a 4 MV x-ray beam. The relativesensitivitiesof theLiFchips weremeasuredatseveraldepths in polystyrene from an 1921rsource. The results are given in table 3 and also as open circles in figure 5 . Uncertainty in the measurements of relative sensitivities has been estimated to be about *3%. These data show that the sensitivity of LiF TLD to '921r photons increases with depth by up to about 8.5% at 10 cm depth. 3.2. Calculations The relative sensitivity of LiF to Ig2Ir spectra calculated as the sum of the relative was sensitivities, shown in figure 4, weighted by the photon fluence in polystyrene. The values of relative sensitivity at the midpoint of the energy bins were obtained from the broken curve, shown in figure 4, connecting the experimental data, following the same pattern as the curve which the ratioof the mass energy absorption full is coefficient of LiF to air. Monte Carlo-calculated photon fluences in polystyrene and water at distances of 1, 5 and 10 cm from a point isotropic 1921r source are shown in figure 6 . As expected, there is a shift of energy toward lower energies at larger distances from the source. Numerical values of the photon fluence, which may be useful in future calculations, are given in table 4. The calculated relative sensitivity (given in table 3 and also shown as the full circles in figure 5) has a variance of about 5 % . There is good agreement between the measured and calculated relative sensitivities with both showing an increase of sensitivity of LiF with depth. Meli et a1 (1988) have used the Monte Carlo-calculated photon spectra to calculate the average photon energy, mass energy absorption coefficient and exposure-to-dose conversion factor (f-factor) at distances of 1, 5 and 10 cm from the source. Table 5

The dosimetry of '921r using LiF

TLD

1165

40 -

30 -

F
Y

c
P l -

20-

10 -

L L

Dose

to a mall mass of

water in alr ( c G y )

i
150

Figure 3. Response of LiF TLD chips to 60, 80, 100 and 250 kV and 4 MV x-ray beams and '921r. For the orthovoltage beams and '921r the chips were irradiated in air and the exposures measured with an NBS 4 MV beam the chips were irradiated in phantom to known doses calibrated Spokas chamber. For the determined with an NBS calibrated thimble chamber.

reproduces these calculations which show the average photon energy in polystyrene to be 335, 251 and 216 keV at 1, 5 and 10 cm, respectively, representing a degradation of33%at5cm and 55% at 10cm, compared with the average energy at 1 cm. In water, the energy degradation is found to be about the same as in polystyrene. The mass energy absorption coefficient decreases by 3% within the first 5 cm of phantom material and then remains almost constant for a depth of up to 10 cm.

4. Discussion and conclusion

The shift of the photon spectrum Ig2Ir toward lower of energies with increasing distance in a phantom causes the sensitivity of LiF TLD to be depth dependent. At 10 cm depth the sensitivity of LiF chips is about 8.5% greater than at 1 cm. Thus, it is necessary to incorporate this depth-dependent correction to LiF sensitivity. However, the variation of relative sensitivity of LiF TLDS with distance from lg21rsources, makes it difficult toperformaccuratemeasurements of dosearoundmultiplesourceconfigurations because different sources would be at different distances from the measurement point. If depth-dependentcorrectionstotheLiFresponseareignoredtheerrorindose

1166

A S Meigooni, J A Meli and R Nath

-.agio
" I

100

1000

lOoc0

Photon energy (keV1

Figure 4. Relative sensitivity of LiF for different energy x-rays. These data are relative to 4 MV x-rays. The photon energies on the horizontal scale represent monoenergetic equivalents for the x-ray spectra. The full curve represents the ratio of mass energy absorption coefficients of LiF and air and the broken curve is just connecting the experimental data following the same shape as the full curve. Open circles and crosses are values from Weaver (1984) and Hartmann er a/ (1983), respectively.

Table 3. Measuredandcalculatedsensitivity of LiF at various depths in polystyrene from a I9*1r source relative to the sensitivity to a 4 MV x-ray beam.
Relative sensitivity of LiF Measured Calculated Depth in phantom (cm)
1.o 1.36 3.34 5.00 5.32 7.27 10.00 10.27 1.012

1.000 1.023

1.048

1.045 1.060
-

1.072

1.085

measurements would be in the range of about 10% based upon the single source data presented here. In brachytherapy dosimetry, it is customary to calibrate TLDS with a high dose rate megavoltage photon beam and then correct the TLD response to the brachytherapy photon energies. Therefore, the sensitivity of LiF TLD to the I9*Ir spectrum at any depth is obtained by multiplying the measuredsensitivity to the calibrated beam MV, (4 in this work) by the values presented in table 3 and figure 5. For a multiseed implant, this correction can be estimated using the point source approximation to calculate relative contributions arising from different distances. Although referenced to a 4 MV x-ray beam, the relative sensitivities given in this work should be applicable when any other megavoltage photon beam is used as the reference.

The dosimetry of '92Zr using LiF

TLD

1167

c
c

) r

5
2 c
K
W
W

1.05 -

1.0

0.950

5
10
15

Depth l m c l

Figure 5. Relative sensitivity of LiF in polystyrene as a function of distance in polystyrene from an '921r source. The open and full circles denote measured and calculated values, respectively. The curve is a fit through the measured data.

1 cm depth

l
'0

IWater
":.
5 cm depth
Polystyrene

200

400

600

,A,,,,
10 cm depth

200

wx)

600

200

400

600

Photon energy IkeV)

Figure 6. Photon energy spectra calculated in water and polystyrene at 1, 5 and 10 cm distance from a point source of '921r encapsulated by 0.5 mm of standard stainless steel, using the ITS (Integrated Tiger Series) Monte Carlo code. The spectra at each depth are normalised to the total photon fluence at that depth and are presented as a percentage of the total.

In additionto relative sensitivity, the average photon energy, relative photon fluence spectrum, effective mass energy absorption coefficient and exposure-to-dose conversion factor have been determined as a function of depth in polystyrene to facilitate accurate measurements of doses around '921rsources using LiF TLDS.

1168

A S Meigooni, J A Meli and R Nath

of 1, 5

Table 4. Relative photon spectra in water and polystyrene phantoms at source-detector distances and 10 cm.Thesespectraarecalculated by MonteCarlomethodandnormalisedtoatotal photons at each depth.
Depth in water Depth Photon energy E (MeV)
0.620 - 0.600 0.600 - 0.580 0.580 - 0.560 0.560 - 0.540 0.540-0.520 0.520 - 0.500 0.500 - 0.480 0.480 - 0.460 0.460 - 0.440 0.440 - 0.420 0.420 - 0.400 0.400 - 0.380 0.380 -0.360 0.360 - 0.340 0.340 - 0.320 0.320- 0.300 0.300-0.280 0.280 - 0.260 0.260 -0,240 0.240 .- 0.220 0.220 - 0.200 0.200 - 0.180 0.180-0.160 0.160-0.140 0.140-0.120 0.120-0.100 0.100-0.080 0.080 - 0.600 0.060 - 0.040 0.040 - 0.020 0.020 - 0.010 1 cm

of 100

in polystyrene
10 cm 0.898 1.023 0.197 0.158 0.199 0.206 0.281 1.190 2.417 2.537 1.001 0.710 2.691 4.114 4.457 7.783 3.823 3.223 3.309 3.634 4.080 4.852 6.257 6.789 6.926 7.680 7.989 6.446 4.354 0.770 0.006 1 cm 2.701 1 0.378 0.351 0.513 3.440 6.505 0.311 10.579

5 cm

5 cm
1.471 1.260 0.217 0.243 0.210 0.254 0.330 1.936 3.369 3.471 1.099 0.422 4.177 5.834 6.088 11.288 4.122 2.604 2.422 3.023 3.353 4.354 5.919 7.187 5.580 6.083 5.707 4.693 2.621 0.638 0.019

10 cm 0.989 0.382 0.128 0.221 0.184 0.210 0.269 1.196 2.180 2.23 1 0.906 0.534 2.805 3.887 4.394 7.334 4.208 2.907 3.363 3.532 4.171 5.019 5.611 7.047 6.540 7.638 8.416 6.895 5.104 1.176 0.005

1.353 2.620 2.575 2.363 1.47 1 0.23 1 0.31 0.334 0.182 0.314 0.368 0.362 0.296 0.239 0.359 0.347 0.501 1.822 3.456 6.664 6.595 3.3705 3.787 6.641 1.649 1.544 1.206 0.625 0.375 7.386 7.405 4.072 6.075 10.368 6.506 10.820 10.601 11.417 20.601 20.415 4.789 4.929 4.296 1.513 1.443 2.671 2.775 1.538 1.457 1.562 2.878 3.520 1.967 4.438 2.006 6.032 3.321 3.930 4.277 6.506 1.450 1.546 5.343 6.161 1.400 5.429 0.800 4.166 0.51 0.531 2.193 0.31 0.230 0.007 0.047 0.239 0.000 0.027

1.515 1.803 2.224 2.904

1.555 0.959 1 1 0.036

Water Polystyrene

337 (341) 335

258 (260) 25 1

22 1 (223) 216

0.032 (0.032) 0.030.029 1

0.031 (0.031) 0.030

0.031 (0.031)

The dosimetry of Ig2Ir using LiF

Acknowledgment

TLD

1169

Supported by USPHS Contract N01-CM-57777 awarded by the Division of Cancer Treatment, NCI.

RBsumB
Influence de la variation du spectre en tnergie pour la dosimetrie pour thermoluminescence (LiF) du Les mesures de dose absolue autour des grains de faible activitt utilists en curiethtrapie sont rtaliser avec les chambres dionisation. Les dimensions de la chambre ne permettent pas dobtenir une bonne resolution a proximitt des grains et le courant produit par Iionisation est trbs faible. De petits dosimbtres thermoluminescents (TLD) permettent de surmonter ces difficultts, mais la dipendance de leur rtponse vis-a-vis de Itnergie doit &re prise en compte. Dans ce travail, les auteurs ont mesurt la dose dans le polystyrbne, B plusieurs distances dune source de dactivitt Clevte (370 GBq), connectte Bun appareil 1921r B chargement diffirt, en utilisant une chambre dionisation et des bltonnets thermoluminescents de LiF. Les donntes obtenues montrent que dans lintervalle allant de 1 B 10 mbtres de la source, la sensibilitt du LiF varie jusqua 8,5%. Cette variation est attribuie a la rtponse plus tlevte du LiF aux Cnergies de photons les plus basses, et a Ienrichissement du spectre de photons en Cnergies plus faibles quand le profondeur augmente. La sensibilitt du LiF pour le 1921ra tgalement CtC calculte en pondtrant la riponse du LiF en Les calculs fonction de Itnergiepar le spectredesphotonscalcultparlamtthodedeMonteCarlo. conduisent B une variation comparable de la sensibilitt en fonction de la distance a la source.

h. difficiles a

Zusammenfassung
Der EinfluS von Schwankungen der Energiespektren von LiF TLDs. mit der Tiefe bei der Dosimetrie von 1921rmit Hilfe

Absolute Messungen der Dosisverteilung um Seeds mit niedriger Aktivitat, wie sie in der Brachytherapie verwendetwerden,sindmitIonisationskammernschwerdurchzufiihren.DiephysikalischeGroSeder Kammern erlaubt in der Nahe der Seeds keine gute Auflosung und der erzeugte Ionisationsstrom ist sehr Thermolumineszenzdosimetern (TLDs)gelostwerden;ihre niedrig.DieseProblemekonnenmitkleinen Energieabhangigkeit sollte dabei aber beriicksichtigt werden. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wurde die Dosis in Polysterol in verschiedenen Abstanden von der hochaktiven 921r-Quelle (370 GBq) eines Remote-Afterloading-Geratesgemessen mit HilfeeinerIonisationskammerund mit LiFTLDChips.DieErgebnisse zu zeigen, daS in einem Bereich von 1-10 von der Quelle die Empfindlichkeit von LiF bis 8.5% schwankt. cm Dies wird zuriickgefiihrt auf die hohere Empfindlichkeit von LiF gegeniiber niedrigen Photonenenergien und auf die Verschiebung des Photonenspektrums hin zu niedrigen Energien bie zunehmender Tiefe. Die Empfindlichkeit von LiFgegniiber 921rwurde berechnet durch Wichtung des Energie-abhangigen Verhaltens von LiF mit Hilfe von Photonenspektren, die mit der Monte Carlo-Methode berechnet worden waren. Die Berechnungen fiihren zu einer ahnlichen Anderung in der Empfindlichkeit mit zunehmendem Abstand von der Quelle.

References
Amersham International Ltd 1982 Medical Radiation Sources Caialogue Dale R G 1982 A Monte Carlo derivation of parameters for use in the tissue dosimetry of medium and low energy nuclides Br. J. Radiol. 55 748-57 Halbleib J A and Mehlhorn J A 1984 ITS: The integrated tiger series of coupled electron photon Monte Carlo transport code Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N M . Report SAND 84-0543 Hartmann G H, Schlege W and Scharfenberg H 1983 The three-dimensional dose distribution of I2I seeds in tissue Phys. Med. Biol. 28 693-9 ICRU 1973 Measurement of Absorbed Dose in a Phantom Irradiated by a Single Beam of X or Gamma Rays Report 23 (Washington, DC: ICRU) Johns H E and Cunningham J R 1983 The Physics of Radiology 4th edn

1170

A S Meigooni, J A Meli and R Nath

Meigooni A S, Meli J A and Nath R 1988 A comparison of solid phantoms with water for dosimetry of lZ5l brachytherapy sources Med. Phys. in press Meli J A, Meigooni A S and Nath R 1988 On the choice of phantom material for dosimetry of I9'Ir sources Int. J. Radiat. Oncd. 14 587-94 Task Group 21, Radiation Therapy Committee, AAPM 1983 A protocol for the determination of absorbed dose from high-energy photon and electron beams Med. Phys. 10 741-71 Weaver K A 1984 Response of LiF powder to '"I photons Med. Phys. 11 850-4