[1]杨凤,刘明哲,王先良,等.两种放射源活度校准方法对比[J].中国医学物理学杂志,2020,37(10):1213-1217.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.10.001]
　YANG Feng,LIU Mingzhe,WANG Xianliang,et al.Comparison of two kinds of calibration methods for the activity of radioactive sources[J].Chinese Journal of Medical Physics,2020,37(10):1213-1217.[doi:DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.10.001]
点击复制

两种放射源活度校准方法对比()
分享到：

《中国医学物理学杂志》[ISSN:1005-202X/CN:44-1351/R]

卷:
37
期数:
2020年第10期
页码:
1213-1217
栏目:
医学放射物理
出版日期:
2020-10-29

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of two kinds of calibration methods for the activity of radioactive sources
文章编号:
1005-202X（2020）10-1213-05
作者:
杨凤1; 刘明哲2; 王先良1; 祁国海1; 康盛伟1; 汤婷1; 冯玺1; 刘敏1; 黎杰1
Author(s):
YANG Feng1;  LIU Mingzhe2;  WANG Xianliang1;  QI Guohai1;  KANG Shengwei1;  TANG Ting1;  FENG Xi1;  LIU Min1;  LI Jie1
1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China 2. College of Nuclear Technology and Automation Engineering, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China
关键词:
1.四川省肿瘤医院放疗科;  四川 成都 610041;  2.成都理工大学核技术与自动化工程学院;  四川 成都 610059
Keywords:
Keywords: afterloading well-type chamber radioactive source activity calibration Ir-192 dose calculation
分类号:
R312；R144.1
DOI:
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-202X.2020.10.001
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的：研究两种放射源活度的校准方法的差异，讨论其在临床实践中的适用性。方法：通过两种不同的源校准方法测量4颗MicroSelectron Ir-192源。第一种方法用卫生行业标准（WS262-2017）提供的设置（300 V偏压），在井型电离室的最大灵敏位置测量电荷，用WS262-2017中提供的公式计算放射源活度。第二种方法用井型电离室厂家提供的设置（400 V偏压），在井型电离室的最大灵敏位置测量电荷，用厂家提供的公式计算放射源活度。对比两种方法的测量结果与理论计算值的偏差。结果：根据WS262-2017和厂家提供的方法测得放射源活度分别为AW和Ap，AW与Ap之间的最小偏差为0.64%，最大偏差为-3.03%；与理论计算值AT相比，AW与AT之间的最小偏差为-0.21%，最大偏差为2.60%；Ap与AT之间的最小偏差为-0.34%，最大偏差为4.13%。结论：根据WS262-2017和PTW方法测得的结果具有较好的一致性。 【关键词】后装近距离；井型电离室；放射源活度校准；铱；剂量计算
Abstract:
Abstract: Objective To study the differences between two kinds of calibration methods for the activity of radioactive sources, and discuss their applicabilities in clinical practice. Methods Four MicroSelectron Ir-192 sources were measured using two different calibration methods. In the first method, the electric charge at the most sensitive position of the well-type ionization chamber was measured at the setting (300 V bias) provided by the industry standard?f hygiene (WS262-2017), and the activity of radioactive sources was measured using the formula provided by WS262-2017. In the second method, the electric charge at the most sensitive position of the well-type ionization chamber was measured at 400 V bias which was the setting provided by the manufacturer of the well-type ionization chamber, and the activity of radioactive sources was measured using the formula provided by the manufacturer. The deviation between the measured results and the theoretically calculated values was compared. Results According to the methods separately provided by WS262-2017 and the manufacturer, the activity of radioactive sources was AW and AP, respectively. The minimum deviation between AW and AP was 0.64%, and the maximum deviation was -3.03%. The minimum and maximum deviations between AW and the theoretically calculated result AT was -0.21% and 2.60%, respectively and the minimum and maximum deviations between AP and AT was -0.34% and 4.13%, respectively. Conclusion The results measured by the methods provided by WS262-2017 and the manufacturer are in good agreement.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
【收稿日期】2020-03-11 【基金项目】成都市重点研发支撑计划（2019-YF09-00095-SN）；国家重点研发计划（2017YFC0113100） 【作者简介】杨凤，实习研究员，研究方向：核信息获取、医学物理，E-mail: 366890836@qq.com 【通信作者】黎杰，研究员，研究方向：医学物理，E-mail: jie.li@yeah.net
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-10-29