RESUMO
Objective. Ionization chambers, mostly used for beam calibration and for reference dosimetry, can show high recombination effects in pulsed high dose rate proton beams. The aims of this paper are: first, to characterize the linearity response of newly designed asymmetrical beam monitor chambers (ABMC) in a 100-226 MeV pulsed high dose rate per pulse scanned proton beam; and secondly, to calibrate the ABMC with a PPC05 (IBA Dosimetry) plane parallel ionization chamber and compare to calibration with a home-made Faraday cup (FC).Approach. The ABMC response linearity was evaluated with both the FC and a PTW 60019 microDiamond detector. Regarding ionometry-based ABMC calibration, recombination factors were evaluated theoretically, then numerically, and finally experimentally measured in water for a plane parallel ionization chamber PPC05 (IBA Dosimetry) throughkssaturation curves. Finally, ABMC calibration was also achieved with FC and compared to the ionometry method for 7 energies.Main results. Linearity measurements showed that recombination losses in the new ABMC design were well taken into account for the whole range of the machine dose rates. The two-voltage-method was not suitable for recombination correction, but Jaffé's plots analysis was needed, emphasizing the current IAEA TRS-398 reference protocol limitations. Concerning ABMC calibration, FC based absorbed dose estimation and PPC05-based absorbed dose estimation differ by less than 6.3% for the investigated energies.Significance.So far, no update on reference dosimetry protocols is available to estimate the absorbed dose in ionization chambers for clinical high dose rate per pulse pulsed scanned proton beams. This work proposes a validation of the new ABMC design, a method to take into account the recombination effect for ionometry-based ABMC calibration and a comparison with FC dose estimation in this type of proton beams.
Assuntos
Prótons , Radioatividade , Ciclotrons , Calibragem , Radiometria/métodos , ÁguaRESUMO
PURPOSE: To review current evidence of the role of proton therapy (PT) in other tumors than skull base, sinusal/parasinusal, spinal and pediatric tumors; to determine medico-economic aspects raised by PT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review on Medline was performed with the following keywords: proton therapy, proton beam, protontherapy, cancer; publications with comparison between PT and photon-therapy were also selected. RESULTS: In silico studies have shown superiority (better dose delivery to the target and/or to organs at risk) of PT toward photon-therapy in most of thoracic and abdominal malignant tumors. Potential benefits of PT could be: reduction of toxicities (including radiation-induced cancer), increase of tumor control through a dose-escalation approach, hypofractionation. Cost of treatment is always cited as an issue which actually can be managed by a precise patient selection making PT a cost-effective procedure. Comparison plan with photon therapy may be useful to determine the dosimetric and clinical advantages of PT (Normal Tissue Complications Probability). CONCLUSION: PT may be associated with a great advantage compared to the best photon-therapies in various types of cancers. Accumulation of clinical data is on-going and will challenge the in silico data analysis. Some indications are associated with strong superiority of PT and may be discussed as a new standard within prospective observational studies.