Calibration of a TLD-100 powder dosimetric system to verify the absorbed dose to water imparted by 137Cs sources in low dose rate brachytherapy at the oncology unit in the Hospital General de Mexico.

A thermoluminescence dosimetry (TLD) system was characterised at SSDL-ININ to verify the air-kerma strength (S(K)) and dose-to-water (D(W)) values for (137)Cs sources used in low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy treatments at the Hospital General de Mexico (HGM). It consists of a Harshaw 3500 reader and a set of TLD-100 powder capsules. The samples of TLD-100 powder were calibrated in terms of D(W) vs. nC or nC mg(-1), and their dose response curves were corrected for supralinearity. The D(W) was calculated using the AAPM TG-43 formalism using S(K) for a CDCSM4 (137)Cs reference source. The S(K) value was obtained by using a NE 2611 chamber, and with two well chambers. The angular anisotropy factor was measured with the NE 2611 chamber for this source. The HGM irradiated TLD-100 powder capsules to a reference dose D(W) of 2 Gy with their (137)Cs sources. The percent deviations between the imparted and reference doses were 1.2% < or = Delta < or = 6.5%, which are consistent with the combined uncertainties: 5.6% < or = u(c) < or = 9.8% for D(W).

Intercomparison of absorbed dose to water measurements for 60Co gamma rays using Fricke, alanine and radiochromic dye film dosimetry.

Measurements of absorbed dose at 5 cm depth in a 30 x 30 x 30 cm3 water phantom have been performed using three independent dosimetric techniques: Fricke, alanine and radiochromic dye film (GafChromic HD-810). The measurements were carried out in the secondary standard dosimetry laboratory at ININ Mexico using a collimated 60Co gamma source with a radiation field of 10 x 10 cm2 at the phantom front surface. The source to phantom distance was set at 100 cm. The reference absorbed dose at 5 cm depth in the water phantom was obtained using a 0.6 cm3 ionisation chamber. The absorbed dose to water for the test dosimetry techniques was around 100 Gy. The deviations of the dose obtained from these dosimetry techniques were within 4%. The reasons for these deviations are discussed.