{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03049645390070922, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016312056737588652, 'mean_word_length': 5.081896551724138, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Calibration of low-energy electron beams from a mobile linear accelerator with plane-parallel chambers using both TG-51 and TG-21 protocols.

A new approach to intraoperative radiation therapy led to the development of mobile linear electron accelerators that provide lower electron energy beams than the usual conventional accelerators commonly encountered in radiotherapy. Such mobile electron accelerators produce electron beams that have nominal energies of 4, 6, 9 and 12 MeV. This work compares the absorbed dose output calibrations using both the AAPM TG-51 and TG-21 dose calibration protocols for two types of ion chambers: a plane-parallel (PP) ionization chamber and a cylindrical ionization chamber. Our results indicate that the use of a 'Markus' PP chamber causes 2-3% overestimation in dose-output determination if accredited dosimetry-calibration laboratory based chamber factors (N(60Co)(D,w,) Nx) are used. However, if the ionization chamber factors are derived using a cross-comparison at a high-energy electron beam, then a good agreement is obtained (within 1%) with a calibrated cylindrical chamber over the entire energy range down to 4 MeV. Furthermore, even though the TG-51 does not recommend using cylindrical chambers at the low energies, our results show that the cylindrical chamber has a good agreement with the PP chamber not only at 6 MeV but also down to 4 MeV electron beams.