000178653 001__ 178653
000178653 005__ 20240229143552.0
000178653 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1088/1361-6560/ac4fa0
000178653 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:35086066
000178653 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0031-9155
000178653 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1361-6560
000178653 037__ $$aDKFZ-2022-00182
000178653 041__ $$aEnglish
000178653 082__ $$a530
000178653 1001_ $$aHolm, Kim Marina$$b0
000178653 245__ $$aDirect determination ofkQfor Farmer-type ionization chambers in a clinical scanned carbon-ion beam using water calorimetry.
000178653 260__ $$aBristol$$bIOP Publ.$$c2022
000178653 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000178653 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000178653 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1648039446_1485
000178653 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000178653 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000178653 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000178653 500__ $$aPhys. Med. Biol. 67 (2022) 049401
000178653 520__ $$aWithin two studies, kQ factors for two Farmer-type ionization chambers have been experimentally determined by means of water calorimetry in the entrance channel (EC) of a monoenergetic carbon-ion beam [1] and for a passively modulated spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) [2]. Both studies were performed at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center (HIT) using the PTB portable water calorimeter but applying different initial beam energies of 429 MeV/u for the EC and 278 MeV/u for the SOBP as well as different scanning patterns of the irradiated eld. Comparing their results revealed differences between the experimental kQ factors of up to 1.9% between the EC and the SOBP. To further investigate this unexpected difference, we performed additional kQ determinations for the EC of an 278 MeV/u monoenergetic carbon-ion beam and reevaluated the original data of Osinga-Blättermann et al. [1]. This new experimental data indicated no difference between the kQ factors for the EC and the SOBP and the reevaluation led to a substantial reduction of the originally published kQ factors for the EC of the 429 MeV/u beam [1]. Finally, no signicant difference between the data for the EC and the data for the SOBP can be found within the standard measurement uncertainty of experimental kQ factors of 0.8 %. The results presented here are intended to correct and replace the kQ data published by Osinga- Blättermann et al. [1] and in Osinga-Blättermann and Krauss [3].
000178653 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315$$a315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)$$cPOF4-315$$fPOF IV$$x0
000178653 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo01.inet.dkfz-heidelberg.de
000178653 650_7 $$2Other$$aSOBP
000178653 650_7 $$2Other$$acarbon-ion beams
000178653 650_7 $$2Other$$aentrance channel
000178653 650_7 $$2Other$$akQ factors
000178653 650_7 $$2Other$$awater calorimetry
000178653 7001_ $$00000-0002-6056-9747$$aJaekel, Oliver$$b1
000178653 7001_ $$aKrauss, Achim$$b2
000178653 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1473501-5$$a10.1088/1361-6560/ac4fa0$$n4$$p049401$$tPhysics in medicine and biology$$v67$$x0031-9155$$y2022
000178653 909CO $$ooai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:178653$$pVDB
000178653 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)2036810-0$$60000-0002-6056-9747$$aDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum$$b1$$kDKFZ
000178653 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF4$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bGesundheit$$lKrebsforschung$$vBildgebung und Radioonkologie$$x0
000178653 9141_ $$y2022
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2021-01-28
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1190$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBiological Abstracts$$d2021-01-28
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0113$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2021-01-28
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0430$$2StatID$$aNational-Konsortium$$d2022-11-17$$wger
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bPHYS MED BIOL : 2021$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2022-11-17
000178653 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9900$$2StatID$$aIF < 5$$d2022-11-17
000178653 9201_ $$0I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331$$kE040$$lE040 Med. Physik in der Strahlentherapie$$x0
000178653 980__ $$ajournal
000178653 980__ $$aVDB
000178653 980__ $$aI:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
000178653 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED