[Verification of Response Uncertainty in Electrometers through Cross-Comparison with a Novel Current Source: A Comparative Study with Guidelines for Electrometers Used in Radiation Therapy Dosimeters].

BACKGROUND

A new quality assurance and control method for electrometers using a new current source, different from the method published in the guidelines for electrometers, has been reported. This current source uses dry batteries and exhibits excellent performance in terms of voltage, temperature, and time characteristics. The electrometer sensitivity coefficient can be calculated by comparing the sensitivity of one electrometer with that of another on the electrometer calibration coefficient that has been calibrated by a calibration laboratory in advance in both methods. The guideline method requires two or more sets of ionization chambers and electrometers in the facility. In contrast, our method does not use ionization chambers; therefore, the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer can be measured in any facility. This study compared the uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity factor calculated using the new current source method (current method) with that calculated using a linear accelerator (LINAC) and ionization chambers (LINAC method) described in the electrometer guidelines.

METHOD

In this study, we used a current source that we invented previously by Kawaguchi Electric Works in Japan. The sensitivity ratios of the electrometers were measured with three manufacture's electrometers. The electrometer sensitivity factor was calculated by multiplying the electrometer calibration coefficient. The ionization chamber was 30013 (PTW), and the current source was the current obtained from 10 MV TrueBeam X-rays under calibration conditions. The mean value, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated. The time required to set up the ionization chamber for calculating the sensitivity ratio of the electrometer was also measured. The accuracy was confirmed by calculating the expanded uncertainty of the electrometer sensitivity coefficients.

RESULTS

The LINAC method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.072%. The gross time of the LINAC method was approximately 110 min. The current method had a maximum coefficient of variation of 0.0055% and took less than half the time taken by the LINAC method (35 min) because there was no waiting time for the ionization chamber to be set up and the applied voltage to stabilize under calibration conditions. The expanded uncertainties of the electrometer calibration coefficients were 0.36% and 0.36%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The new cross-comparison method for electrometer sensitivity factors using a current source is more efficient and useful than the linear accelerator method described in the guidelines; furthermore, this method ensured accuracy for quality assurance and control of electrometers.