1.

a) 𝑑 = 0.6 × 𝑅 − 1(𝑐𝑚) = 0.6 × 5 𝑐𝑚 − 1 𝑐𝑚 = 2 𝑐𝑚

b)
Voltage (v) MU setting Mraw (nC) Mraw (nC) Average Mraw (nC)
-300 175 -34.38 -34.36 -34.37
-150 175 -33.95 -34.17 -34.06
300 175 34.52 34.50 34.51
𝑐𝐺𝑦
𝑃 = 1.005; 𝑁 , = 4.932 ; 𝑇 = 22 𝐶, 𝑇 = 19 𝐶; 𝑃 = 102.0 𝑘𝑃𝑎
𝑛𝐶
𝐷 = 𝑀×𝑃 ×𝑘 ×𝑘 ×𝑁 , (𝐺𝑦)
- 𝑘 = 1.01 (From TG-51 figure 5 for NE2571 chamber and 𝑅 = 5 𝑐𝑚 )
- 𝑘 = 0.903 (From TG-51 Table III for NE2571 chamber)

𝑀=𝑀 ×𝑃 , ×𝑃 ×𝑃 ×𝑃
. . . .
- 𝑃 , = = = 0.983
. . .

- 𝑃 = = .
= 1.003
.

. .
- 𝑃 = = = 0.998
( . )
- 𝑃 =1
Therefore, 𝑀 = 34.51 𝑛𝐶 × 0.983 × 1.003 × 0.998 × 1 = 33.96 𝑛𝐶

𝐷 = 33.96 𝑛𝐶 × 1.005 × 1.01 × 0.903 × 4.932 = 153.5 𝑐𝐺𝑦

.
The output for this unit is therefore: = 0.877 𝑐𝐺𝑦/𝑀𝑈

c)

For NE2571: 𝑉 = 0.6 𝑐𝑚 , 𝑁 , = 4.932 𝑐𝐺𝑦/𝑛𝐶

For A1SL: 𝑉 = 0.053 𝑐𝑚

𝐷 = 𝑀×𝑃 ×𝑘 ×𝑘 ×𝑁 , (𝑁𝐸2571)
𝐷 = 𝑀×𝑃 ×𝑘 ×𝑘 ×𝑁 , (𝐴1𝑆𝐿)

The dose to water should be the case in both cases, therefore:

𝑀×𝑃 ×𝑘 ×𝑘 ×𝑁 , (𝑁𝐸2571) = 𝑀 × 𝑃 × 𝑘 ×𝑘 ×𝑁 , (𝐴1𝑆𝐿)

𝑀 ×𝑃 , ×𝑘 , ×𝑘 ,
𝑁 , , = ×𝑁 , ,
𝑀 ×𝑃 , ×𝑘 , ×𝑘 ,

Assuming coefficients close to one are equal to one. The above expression reduces to:
 𝑀
𝑁 , , = ×𝑁 , ,
𝑀
In essence, we’re trying to estimate how much charge will A1SL register compared to the
NE2571. It is reasonable to assume that charge registered will be proportional to the volume
of the chamber. Therefore,
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝐸2571
𝑁 , , = ×𝑁 , ,
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐴1𝑆𝐿

0.6 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝐺𝑦
= × 4.932
0.053 𝑐𝑐 𝑛𝐶
𝑐𝐺𝑦
= 55.834
𝑛𝐶
2.

a) Method: Ratio of TPR

𝑇(𝑑 , 𝐹𝑆)
𝐶𝐹 =
𝑇(𝑑, 𝐹𝑆)
𝑑 = 3 + 6.5𝜌 + 4.5
𝑑 = 3 + 6.5 + 4.5 𝑐𝑚 = 14 𝑐𝑚
Depth 𝑇𝑃𝑅(𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ, 10 × 10 𝑐𝑚 ) for 6 𝑀𝑉
7.5 0.849
9.45 0.7924
14 0.664
17.25 0.5815
25.05 0.4172

Material 𝜌 𝑑 CF (Ratio of TPR)

Water 1 14 1
Lung 0.3 9.45 1.19
Bone 1.5 17.25 0.88
Air 0 7.5 1.28
Aluminum 2.7 25.05 0.63

b) Method: Batho’s Power Law

𝑇(6.5 + 4.5 𝑐𝑚, 𝐹𝑆) 𝑇(11 𝑐𝑚, 𝐹𝑆)
𝐶𝐹 = = = (0.799)
𝑇(4.5 𝑐𝑚, 𝐹𝑆) 𝑇(4.5 𝑐𝑚, 𝐹𝑆)

Depth 𝑇𝑃𝑅(𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ, 10 × 10 𝑐𝑚 ) for 6 𝑀𝑉

4.5 0.938
11 0.749

Material 𝜌 CF (Batho‘s Method)

Water 1 1
Lung 0.3 1.17
Bone 1.5 0.89
Air 0 1.25
Aluminum 2.7 0.68
3.
d) Graphs of POP distributions:
i) Co-60 POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 10 cm

Co-60 POP, FS=20x20 cm2

180
160
140
Relative dose (%)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

Co-60 POP (Normalized) , FS=20x20 cm2

120

100
Relative dose (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

ii) Figure 2: 6 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 20 cm
6 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 20 cm
160
140
Relative Dose (%) 120
100
80
60
40
20
0

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

6 MV POP (Normalized) , FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 20 cm

120

100
Relative Dose (%)

80

60

40

20

0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

iii) Figure 3: 6 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 30 cm
6 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 30 cm
140
120
Relative Dose (%) 100
80
60
40
20
0

10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

6 MV POP (Normalized), FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 30 cm

140
120
Relative Dose (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9

Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

iv) Figure 4: 15 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 30 cm
15 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 30 cm
160
140

Relative dose (%)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9
Depth (cm)

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

15 MV POP (Normalized), FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 30 cm

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9

Beam 1 Beam 2 sum

 v) Figure 5: 6 and 15 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 20 cm

6 and 15 MV POP, FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 20 cm

180
160
Relative Dose (%) 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Depth (cm)

6 MV Beam 15 MV Beam sum

6 and 15 MV POP (Normalized), FS=20x20 cm2, separation = 20 cm

120

100
Relative dose (%)

80

60

40

20

0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Depth (cm)

6 MV Beam 15 MV Beam sum

e)
i) The maximum dose is located at a PDD of 100.37% at depths of 1 cm and 9.5 cm
ii) The maximum dose is located at a PDD of 104.28% at depths of 2 cm and 18 cm
iii) The maximum dose is located at a PDD of 115.88% at depths of 1.5 cm and 28.5 cm
iv) The maximum dose is located at a PDD of 109.15% at depths of 3 cm and 27 cm
v) The maximum dose is located at a PDD of 105.08% at a depth of 2 cm. There is only one point at
which the dose is maximum here because the 6 MV beam attenuates more than the 18 MV beam.

f) As the separation distance increases, the maximum dose also increases. This is because for larger
separations, there is more attenuation that occurs, which results in a lower midplane PDD, and is
observed in Figures 2 and 3, where the maximum dose is 104.28% and 115.88%, respectively.
Therefore, when the PDD is normalized to the depth dose at the midplane, the maximum dose is larger
 for larger separation distances because the midplane dose is small. Thus, dividing by a smaller
denominator results in an increased maximum dose. In other words, the midplane dose decreases for
increasing separation distances, which results in much larger maximum dose. For small separations (<
10 cm) low MV energy beams are well suited: extended region of uniform dose with relatively flat
plateau between the maxima. For larger separations (>15cm) high energy beam are required to avoid
hot spots in the regions of both maxima.

In terms of energy, the maximum dose increases as the beam energy decreases. This is largely attributed
by attenuation that occurs and results in a midplane dose that is smaller for lower energy beams
compared to higher energy beams. Comparing Figures 3 and 4, the maximum dose is 115.88% and
109.15% for the 6 MV and 15 MV beams, respectively. Since the beams are summed, the PDD at
midplane is smaller and thus, normalizing the entire PDD to the depth dose at the midplane will result
in a larger maximum dose.

g) We are interested in the beam energy that would generate the most uniform dose. High energy beams
must be used to avoid the dip in the middle and to avoid hot spots in the regions of both maxima. Here
are three POP combinations that illustrate how beam energy affects relative dose.

Chart Title
140
120
Relative Dose (%)

100
80
60
40
20
0
10.5
12
13.5
15
16.5
18
19.5
21
22.5
24
25.5
27
28.5
30
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
9

Depth (cm)

6 MV 15 MV 18 MV

The above graph shows that a 6 MV POP isn’t ideal. From the graph, we see that the 15 MV and 18 MV
POP deliver a very similar dose in the center, with the 18 MV POP delivering slightly less dose near the
edges. Therefore, 18 MV POP is a good option for POP treatment of L-spine @29 cm separation.
4.

Radius # Length of Radii (cm) SAR at 7 cm depth

0 1.067 0.04461
1 5.425-2.236=3.189 0.12029
2 6.458-2.593=3.865 0.13922
3 6.544-0.703=5.841 0.17830
4 5.567 0.17364
5 4.182 0.14682
6 3.677 0.13396
7 3.338 0.12446
8 3.083 0.11732
9 3.238 0.12166
10 1.678 0.06844
11 1.212 0.05027
12 1.017 0.04266
13 1.149 0.04781
14 1.474 0.06049
15 1.155 0.04805
Total SAR 1.618

1.618
𝑆𝐴𝑅 = = 0.101
16
𝑇𝑀𝑅 (7,0) = 0.650
𝑇𝑀𝑅 (𝑑, 𝐹𝑆) = 𝑇𝑀𝑅 (7,0) + 𝑆𝐴𝑅 = 0.751
𝑐𝐺𝑦
𝐷 = 187 × 2.7 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 504.9 𝑐𝐺𝑦
𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐷 = 504.9 𝑐𝐺𝑦 × 0.751 = 379.2 𝑐𝐺𝑦 or 𝐷 = (𝑑𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒)(𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒)(𝑆 )(𝑆 )(𝑃𝐷𝐷)
5. Given 𝑁 , in Gy/C, the absorbed-dose to water calibration factor for an ion chamber located in a beam
of quality Q, then, under reference conditions:
𝐷
𝑁 , =
𝑀
where 𝐷 is the absorbed dose to water in Gy at the point of measurement of the ion chamber when it
is absent i.e., at the reference depth and 𝑀 is the fully corrected electrometer reading in coulombs, C.

For a thin wall + Spencer Attix:

𝐷 =𝜙 and 𝐷 =𝜙
Since the cavity is assumed to be small compared with the rage of secondary electrons incident on it, so
its presence does not perturb the fluence of the charged particles in medium (𝜙 = 𝜙 ). Therefore:
𝐿 𝐿
𝜙
𝐷 𝜌 𝜌 𝐿
= = =
𝐷 𝐿 𝐿 𝜌
𝜙
𝜌 𝜌
Then:
𝐿
𝐷 =𝐷 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝜌
Where:
- 𝐷 =
- 𝑃 is the correction factor due to stem effects
- 𝑃 is the wall correction factor
- 𝑃 is the correction factor for the central electrode.
- 𝑃 . Is the replacement factor that corrects for perturbation in the electron and photon fluence
- 𝑃 .=𝑃 ×𝑃

Let 𝑚𝑒𝑑 = 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝑤. The absorbed dose to water can be written as:
𝐿
𝐷 =𝐷 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝜌
Therefore:
𝐷
𝑁 , =
𝑀
1 𝐿
= 𝐷 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝑀 𝜌
1 𝑀 𝑊 𝐿
= 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝑀𝑚 𝑒 𝜌

1 𝑊 𝐿
= 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝑚 𝑒 𝜌
By definition:
1 𝑊 𝐿
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝑁 𝑚 𝑒 𝜌
,
𝑘 = =
𝑁 , 1 𝑊 𝐿
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝑚 𝑒 𝜌

Note that 𝑚 and are constant, thus:

𝐿
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝜌
𝑘 =
𝐿
𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 𝑃 .
𝜌