Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 4, 2025
Dosimetry for Cell Irradiation using Orthovoltage 40-300 kV X-Ray Facilities
Published on: February 20, 2021
Technical note: Consistency of IAEA's TRS-483 and AAPM's extended TG-51 protocols for clinical reference dosimetry of
Jasmine Duchaine1,2, Daniel Markel3, Jean-Luc Ley3
1Département de physique, Université de Montréal, Campus MIL, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Background:
While IAEA's TRS-483 code of practice is adapted for the calibration of CyberKnife machines, AAPM's TG-51 is still the protocol recommended by the manufacturer for their calibration. The differences between both protocols could lead to differences in absorbed dose to water during the calibration process.
Purpose:
The aims of this work are to evaluate the difference resulting from the application of TG-51 (including the manufacturer's adaptations) and TRS-483 in terms of absorbed dose to water for a CyberKnife M6, and to evaluate the consistency of TRS-483.
Methods:
Measurements are performed on a CyberKnife M6 unit under machine-specific reference conditions using a calibrated Exradin A12 ionization chamber. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are performed to estimate and using a fully modeled detector and an optimized CyberKnife M6 beam model. The latter is also estimated experimentally. Differences between the adapted TG-51 and TRS-483 protocols are identified and their impact is quantified.
Results:
When using an in-house experimentally-evaluated volume averaging correction factor, a difference of 0.11% in terms of absorbed dose to water per monitor unit is observed when applying both protocols. This disparity is solely associated to the difference in beam quality correction factor. If a generic volume averaging correction factor is used during the application of TRS-483, the difference in calibration increases to 0.14%. In both cases, the disparity is not statistically significant according to TRS-483's reported uncertainties on their beam quality correction factor (i.e., 1%). MC results lead to and . Results illustrate that the generic beam quality correction factor provided in the TRS-483 might be overestimated by 0.36% compared to our specific model and that this overestimation could be due to the volume averaging component.
Conclusions:
For clinical reference dosimetry of the CyberKnife M6, the application of TRS-483 is found to be consistent with TG-51.
