Development of novel ionization chambers for reference dosimetry in electron flash radiotherapy.
FLASH
dosimetry
ion chamber
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Sep 2024
23 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
10
08
2024
received:
20
02
2024
accepted:
10
09
2024
medline:
23
9
2024
pubmed:
23
9
2024
entrez:
23
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Reference dosimetry in ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) beamlines is significantly hindered by limitations in conventional ionization chamber design. In particular, conventional chambers suffer from severe charge collection efficiency (CCE) degradation in high dose per pulse (DPP) beams. The aim of this study was to optimize the design and performance of parallel plate ion chambers for use in UHDR dosimetry applications, and evaluate their potential as reference class chambers for calibration purposes. Three chamber designs were produced to determine the influence of the ion chamber response on electrode separation, field strength, and collection volume on the ion chamber response under UHDR and ultra-high dose per pulse (UHDPP) conditions. Three chambers were designed and produced: the A11-VAR (0.2-1.0 mm electrode gap, 20 mm diameter collector), the A11-TPP (0.3 mm electrode gap, 20 mm diameter collector), and the A30 (0.3 mm electrode gap, 5.4 mm diameter collector). The chambers underwent full characterization using an UHDR 9 MeV electron beam with individually varied beam parameters of pulse repetition frequency (PRF, 10-120 Hz), pulse width (PW, 0.5-4 µs), and pulse amplitude (0.01-9 Gy/pulse). The response of the ion chambers was evaluated as a function of the DPP, PRF, PW, dose rate, electric field strength, and electrode gap. The chamber response was found to be dependent on DPP and PW, and these dependencies were mitigated with larger electric field strengths and smaller electrode spacing. At a constant electric field strength, we measured a larger CCE as a function of DPP for ion chambers with a smaller electrode gap in the A11-VAR. For ion chambers with identical electrode gap (A11-TPP and A30), higher electric field strengths were found to yield better CCE at higher DPP. A PW dependence was observed at low electric field strengths (500 V/mm) for DPP values ranging from 1 to 5 Gy at PWs ranging from 0.5 to 4 µs, but at electric field strengths of 1000 V/mm and higher, these effects become negligible. This study confirmed that the CCE of ion chambers depends strongly on the electrode spacing and the electric field strength, and also on the DPP and the PW of the UHDR beam. A significant finding of this study is that although chamber performance does depend on PW, the effect on the CCE becomes negligible with reduced electrode spacing and increased electric field. A CCE of ≥95% was achieved for DPPs of up to 5 Gy with no observable dependence on PW using the A30 chamber, while still achieving an acceptable performance in conventional dose rate beams, opening up the possibility for this type of chamber to be used as a reference class chamber for calibration purposes of electron FLASH beamlines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reference dosimetry in ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) beamlines is significantly hindered by limitations in conventional ionization chamber design. In particular, conventional chambers suffer from severe charge collection efficiency (CCE) degradation in high dose per pulse (DPP) beams.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to optimize the design and performance of parallel plate ion chambers for use in UHDR dosimetry applications, and evaluate their potential as reference class chambers for calibration purposes. Three chamber designs were produced to determine the influence of the ion chamber response on electrode separation, field strength, and collection volume on the ion chamber response under UHDR and ultra-high dose per pulse (UHDPP) conditions.
METHODS
METHODS
Three chambers were designed and produced: the A11-VAR (0.2-1.0 mm electrode gap, 20 mm diameter collector), the A11-TPP (0.3 mm electrode gap, 20 mm diameter collector), and the A30 (0.3 mm electrode gap, 5.4 mm diameter collector). The chambers underwent full characterization using an UHDR 9 MeV electron beam with individually varied beam parameters of pulse repetition frequency (PRF, 10-120 Hz), pulse width (PW, 0.5-4 µs), and pulse amplitude (0.01-9 Gy/pulse). The response of the ion chambers was evaluated as a function of the DPP, PRF, PW, dose rate, electric field strength, and electrode gap.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The chamber response was found to be dependent on DPP and PW, and these dependencies were mitigated with larger electric field strengths and smaller electrode spacing. At a constant electric field strength, we measured a larger CCE as a function of DPP for ion chambers with a smaller electrode gap in the A11-VAR. For ion chambers with identical electrode gap (A11-TPP and A30), higher electric field strengths were found to yield better CCE at higher DPP. A PW dependence was observed at low electric field strengths (500 V/mm) for DPP values ranging from 1 to 5 Gy at PWs ranging from 0.5 to 4 µs, but at electric field strengths of 1000 V/mm and higher, these effects become negligible.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirmed that the CCE of ion chambers depends strongly on the electrode spacing and the electric field strength, and also on the DPP and the PW of the UHDR beam. A significant finding of this study is that although chamber performance does depend on PW, the effect on the CCE becomes negligible with reduced electrode spacing and increased electric field. A CCE of ≥95% was achieved for DPPs of up to 5 Gy with no observable dependence on PW using the A30 chamber, while still achieving an acceptable performance in conventional dose rate beams, opening up the possibility for this type of chamber to be used as a reference class chamber for calibration purposes of electron FLASH beamlines.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : National Institutes of Health - SBIR
ID : 434-75N91022C00039
Organisme : National Institutes of Health: National Cancer Institute
ID : R01CA266673
Organisme : National Institutes of Health: National Cancer Institute
ID : P30CA016672
Organisme : Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas
ID : RP210042
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Baskar R, Lee KA, Yeo R, Yeoh KW. Cancer and radiation therapy: current advances and future directions [published online ahead of print 2012/03/13]. Int J Med Sci. 2012;9(3):193‐199.
Loo BW, Schueler E, Lartey FM, Rafat M, et al. Delivery of ultra‐rapid flash radiation therapy and demonstration of normal tissue sparing after abdominal irradiation of mice. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;98:E16.
Schuler E, Acharya M, Montay‐Gruel P, Loo Jr BW, Vozenin MC, Maxim PG. Ultra‐high dose rate electron beams and the FLASH effect: from preclinical evidence to a new radiotherapy paradigm. Med Phys. 2022;49(3):2082‐2095.
Okoro CM, Schüler E, Taniguchi CM. The therapeutic potential of FLASH‐RT for pancreatic cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(5):1167.
Wu Y, No HJ, Breitkreutz DY, Mascia AE, et al. Technological basis for clinical trials in FLASH radiation therapy: a review. Appl Rad Oncol. 2021;10(2):6‐14.
Bourhis J, Montay‐Gruel P, Gonçalves Jorge P, et al. Clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy: why and how?. Radiother Oncol. 2019;139:11‐17.
Bourhis J, Sozzi WJ, Jorge PG, et al. Treatment of a first patient with FLASH‐radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2019;139:18‐22.
Favaudon V, Caplier L, Monceau V, et al. Ultrahigh dose‐rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6(245):245ra93.
Valdes Zayas A, Kumari N, Liu K, et al. Independent reproduction of the FLASH effect on the gastrointestinal tract: a multi‐institutional comparative study. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(7):2121.
Montay‐Gruel P, Petersson K, Jaccard M, et al. Irradiation in a flash: unique sparing of memory in mice after whole brain irradiation with dose rates above 100 Gy/s. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124(3):365‐369.
Levy K, Natarajan S, Wang J, et al. Abdominal FLASH irradiation reduces radiation‐induced gastrointestinal toxicity for the treatment of ovarian cancer in mice. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21600.
Vozenin MC, Bourhis J, Durante M. Towards clinical translation of FLASH radiotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022;19(12):791‐803.
Venkatesulu BP, Sharma A, Pollard‐Larkin JM, et al. Ultra high dose rate (35 Gy/sec) radiation does not spare the normal tissue in cardiac and splenic models of lymphopenia and gastrointestinal syndrome. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17180.
Vozenin M‐C, Montay‐Gruel P, Limoli C, Germond J‐F. All irradiations that are ultra‐high dose rate may not be FLASH: the critical importance of beam parameter characterization and in vivo validation of the FLASH effect. Radiat Res. 2020;194(6):571‐572.
Smyth LML, Donoghue JF, Ventura JA, et al. Comparative toxicity of synchrotron and conventional radiation therapy based on total and partial body irradiation in a murine model. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):12044.
Motta S, Christensen JB, Togno M, et al. Characterization of LiF:mg,Ti thermoluminescence detectors in low‐LET proton beams at ultra‐high dose rates. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(4):10.
Bazalova‐Carter M, Liu M, Palma B, et al. Comparison of film measurements and Monte Carlo simulations of dose delivered with very high‐energy electron beams in a polystyrene phantom. Med Phys. 2015;42(4):1606‐1613.
Esplen N, Mendonca MS, Bazalova‐Carter M. Physics and biology of ultrahigh dose‐rate (FLASH) radiotherapy: a topical review. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(23):23TR03.
Kudoh H, Celina M, Kaye RJ, Gillen KT, Clough RL. Response of alanine dosimeters at very high dose rate. Appl Radiat Isotopes. 1997;48:497‐499.
Christensen JB, Togno M, Nesteruk KP, et al. Al(2)O(3):c optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) for ultra‐high dose rate proton dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2021;66(8):085003.
Motta S, Christensen JB, Frei F, Peier P, Yukihara EG. Investigation of TL and OSL detectors in ultra‐high dose rate electron beams. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(14):10.
Subiel A, Romano F. Recent developments in absolute dosimetry for FLASH radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2023;96(1148):20220560.
Rahman M, Ashraf M, Zhang R, Bruza P, et al. Electron FLASH delivery at treatment room isocenter for efficient reversible conversion of a clinical LINAC. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;110:872‐882.
Jorge PG, Jaccard M, Petersson K, et al. Dosimetric and preparation procedures for irradiating biological models with pulsed electron beam at ultra‐high dose‐rate. Radiother Oncol. 2019;139:34‐39.
Liu K, Velasquez B, Schueler E. Technical Note: high‐dose and ultra‐high dose rate (UHDR) evaluation of Al2O3:C optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter nanoDots and powdered LiF:Mg,Ti thermoluminescent dosimeters for radiation therapy applications. Med Phys. 2023;51(3):2311‐2319.
Liu K, Palmiero A, Chopra N, Velasquez B, Li Z, Beddar S, Schüler E. Dual beam‐current transformer design for monitoring and reporting of electron ultra‐high dose rate (FLASH) beam parameters. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023;24(2):e13891.
Poirier Y, Xu J, Mossahebi S, Therriault‐Proulx F, Sawant A. Technical note: characterization and practical applications of a novel plastic scintillator for online dosimetry for an ultrahigh dose rate (FLASH) [published online ahead of print 2022/04/25]. Med Phys. 2022;49(7):4682‐4692.
Ashraf MR, Rahman M, Zhang RX, et al. Dosimetry for FLASH radiotherapy: a review of tools and the role of radioluminescence and Cherenkov emission. Front Phys. 2020;8.
Romano F, Bailat C, Jorge PG, Lerch MLF, Darafsheh A. Ultra‐high dose rate dosimetry: challenges and opportunities for FLASH radiation therapy [published online ahead of print 2022/04/12]. Med Phys. 2022;49(7):4912‐4932.
Rahman M, Kozelka J, Hildreth J, et al. Characterization of a diode dosimeter for UHDR FLASH radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2023;50(9):5875‐5883.
Marinelli M, Felici G, Galante F, et al. Design, realization, and characterization of a novel diamond detector prototype for FLASH radiotherapy dosimetry. Med Phys. 2022;49(3):1902‐1910.
Diffenderfer ES, Verginadis II, Kim MM, et al. Design, implementation, and in vivo validation of a novel proton FLASH radiation therapy system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;106(2):440‐448.
Andreo P, Burns DT, Hohlfeld K, Huq MS, et al, IAEA TRS‐398–Absorbed dose determination in external beam radiotherapy: an international code of practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water. International Atomic Energy Agency. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2000;18:35‐36.
Almond PR, Biggs PJ, Coursey BM, et al. AAPM's TG‐51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high‐energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1999;26(9):1847‐1870.
Di Martino F, Giannelli M, Traino A, Lazzeri M. Ion recombination correction for very high dose‐per‐pulse high‐energy electron beams. Med Phys. 2005;32(7):2204‐2210.
McManus M, Romano F, Lee N, et al. The challenge of ionisation chamber dosimetry in ultra‐short pulsed high dose‐rate very high energy electron beams. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):9089.
Boag J. The recombination correction for an ionisation chamber exposed to pulsed radiation in a'swept beam'technique. I. Theory. Phys Med Biol. 1982;27(2):201.
Petersson K, Jaccard M, Germond JF, et al. High dose‐per‐pulse electron beam dosimetry—a model to correct for the ion recombination in the Advanced Markus ionization chamber. Med Phys. 2017;44(3):1157‐1167.
Gomez F, Gonzalez‐Castano DM, Fernandez NG, et al. Development of an ultra‐thin parallel plate ionization chamber for dosimetry in FLASH radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2022;49(7):4705‐4714.
Kranzer R, Schuller A, Rodríguez FG, Weidner J, Paz‐Martín J, Looe HK, Poppe B. Charge collection efficiency, underlying recombination mechanisms, and the role of electrode distance of vented ionization chambers under ultra‐high dose‐per‐pulse conditions. Phys Med. 2022;104:10‐17.
Kranzer R, Poppinga D, Weidner J, et al. Ion collection efficiency of ionization chambers in ultra‐high dose‐per‐pulse electron beams [published online ahead of print 2020/12/01]. Med Phys. 2021;48(2):819‐830.
Di Martino F, Del Sarto D, Giuseppina Bisogni M, et al. A new solution for UHDP and UHDR (Flash) measurements: theory and conceptual design of ALLS chamber. Phys Med. 2022;102:9‐18.
Liu K, Holmes S, Hooten BD, Schueler E, Beddar S. Evaluation of ion chamber response for applications in electron FLASH radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2024;51(1):494‐508.
Bourgouin A, Paz‐Martin J, Gedik YC, et al. Charge collection efficiency of commercially available parallel‐plate ionisation chambers in ultra‐high dose‐per‐pulse electron beams. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(23):10.
Moeckli R, Goncalves Jorge P, Grilj V, et al. Commissioning of an ultra‐high dose rate pulsed electron beam medical LINAC for FLASH RT preclinical animal experiments and future clinical human protocols. Med Phys. 2021;48(6):3134‐3142.
Oesterle R, Gonçalves Jorge P, Grilj V, et al. Implementation and validation of a beam‐current transformer on a medical pulsed electron beam LINAC for FLASH‐RT beam monitoring. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2021;22(11):165‐171.
Allison Palmiero LK, Julie C, Chopra N, et al. Emil Schüler. On the acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance of electron FLASH units. arXiv preprint arXiv. 2024; 2405.15146.
Jaccard M, Durán MT, Petersson K, et al. High dose‐per‐pulse electron beam dosimetry: commissioning of the Oriatron eRT6 prototype linear accelerator for preclinical use. Med Phys. 2018;45(2):863‐874.
Schuler E, Trovati S, King G, et al. Experimental platform for ultra‐high dose rate FLASH irradiation of small animals using a clinical linear accelerator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(1):195‐203.
Liu K, Jorge PG, Tailor R, Moeckli R, Schüler E. Comprehensive evaluation and new recommendations in the use of Gafchromic EBT3 film. Med Phys. 2023;50(11):7252‐7262.
Karsch L, Beyreuther E, Burris‐Mog T, et al. Dose rate dependence for different dosimeters and detectors: tLD, OSL, EBT films, and diamond detectors. Med Phys. 2012;39(5):2447‐2455.
Erikson HA. On the nature of the negative and positive ions in air, oxygen and nitrogen. Phys Rev. 1922;20(2):117.
Gotz M, Karsch L, Pawelke J. A new model for volume recombination in plane‐parallel chambers in pulsed fields of high dose‐per‐pulse. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(22):8634‐8654.
Paz‐Martin J, Schuller A, Bourgouin A, et al. Numerical modeling of air‐vented parallel plate ionization chambers for ultra‐high dose rate applications. Phys Med. 2022;103:147‐156.
Boissonnat G. Chambres d'ionisation en Protonthérapie et Hadronthérapie. Université Caen Normandie; 2015.
Cooper G, Vignesvaran R. A scheme for the implementation of implicit Runge‐Kutta methods. 1990.
Press WH, Teukolsky SA. Adaptive stepsize Runge‐Kutta integration. Comput Phys. 1992;6(2):188‐191.
Knoll GF. Radiation Detection and Measurement. John Wiley & Sons; 2010.
Attix FH. Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry. 1st ed. Wiley; 1986.
Boag JW. The recombination correction for an ionisation chamber exposed to pulsed radiation in a ‘swept beam’ technique. I. Theory. Phys Med Biol. 1982;27(2):201‐211.
Miller JR, Hooten BD, Micka JA, DeWerd LA. Polarity effects and apparent ion recombination in microionization chambers. Med Phys. 2016;43(5):2141‐2152.
Looe HK, Busing I, Tekin T, et al. The polarity effect of compact ionization chambers used for small field dosimetry. Med Phys. 2018;45(12):5608‐5621.
Hyun MA, Miller JR, Micka JA, DeWerd LA. Ion recombination and polarity corrections for small‐volume ionization chambers in high‐dose‐rate, flattening‐filter‐free pulsed photon beams. Med Phys. 2017;44(2):618‐627.
Abdel‐Rahman W, Seuntjens JP, Verhaegen F, Podgorsak EB. Radiation induced currents in parallel plate ionization chambers: measurement and Monte Carlo simulation for megavoltage photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 2006;33(9):3094‐3104.
Aget H, Rosenwald JC. Polarity effect for various ionization chambers with multiple irradiation conditions in electron beams. Med Phys. 1991;18(1):67‐72.
Campos LL, Caldas LV. Induced effects in ionization chamber cables by photon and electron irradiation. Med Phys. 1991;18(3):522‐526.
Boag JW, Wilson T. The saturation curve at high ionization intensity. Br J Appl Phys. 1952;3:222.