Guidelines by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO on the use of innovative brachytherapy devices and applications: Report of Task Group 167.

Although a multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized trial is the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, it is rarely used in the evaluation of innovative devices because of many practical and ethical reasons. It is usually sufficient to compare the dose distributions and dose rates for determining the equivalence of the innovative treatment modality to an existing one. Thus, quantitative evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of innovative radiotherapy devices or applications is a critical part in which physicists should be actively involved. The physicist's role, along with physician colleagues, in this process is highlighted for innovative brachytherapy devices and applications and includes evaluation of (1) dosimetric considerations for clinical implementation (including calibrations, dose calculations, and radiobiological aspects) to comply with existing societal dosimetric prerequisites for sources in routine clinical use, (2) risks and benefits from a regulatory and safety perspective, and (3) resource assessment and preparedness. Further, it is suggested that any developed calibration methods be traceable to a primary standards dosimetry laboratory (PSDL) such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the U.S. or to other PSDLs located elsewhere such as in Europe. Clinical users should follow standards as approved by their country's regulatory agencies that approved such a brachytherapy device. Integration of this system into the medical source calibration infrastructure of secondary standard dosimetry laboratories such as the Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratories in the U.S. is encouraged before a source is introduced into widespread routine clinical use. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) have developed guidelines for the safe and consistent application of brachytherapy using innovative devices and applications. The current report covers regulatory approvals, calibration, dose calculations, radiobiological issues, and overall safety concerns that should be addressed during the commissioning stage preceding clinical use. These guidelines are based on review of requirements of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Transportation, International Electrotechnical Commission Medical Electrical Equipment Standard 60601, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European Commission for CE Marking (Conformité Européenne), and institutional review boards and radiation safety committees.

Experience with an electronic brachytherapy technique for intracavitary accelerated partial breast irradiation.

OBJECTIVES: Phase IV study evaluated the safety and device performance of an electronic brachytherapy system (Axxent Electronic Brachytherapy System) as adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were > or =50 years of age and had completely resected invasive ductal carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (<2.0 cm), with N0 M0 and negative microscopic margins of > or =1 mm. The balloon applicator was placed in a closed cavity with a balloon surface to skin distance of > or =7 mm. The prescribed dose was 3.4 Gy/fraction prescribed to 1 cm beyond the balloon surface twice daily (BID) for 10 fractions. RESULTS: Of 65 patients consented, 21 (32%) were not eligible for treatment, and 44 (68%) were treated, with 6-months follow-up in 43 and 1-year follow-up in 36. The prescribed radiation treatment was successfully delivered in 42/44 (95.4%) patients; one was unsuccessful due to a controller issue and the other declined the final fraction following a balloon deflation. Side effects were as anticipated and generally manageable. Four CTCAE v3 grade 3 toxicities were reported: blistering (1), breast tenderness (1), and moist desquamation (2); all have resolved. The most common grade 2 toxicity was erythema. There were no device-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Early experience demonstrates that the electronic brachytherapy system performed as expected. Electronic brachytherapy has similar acute toxicity profiles to other high dose rate approaches for accelerated partial breast irradiation and offers the convenience of having the treatment in an unshielded room.

Calculated and measured brachytherapy dosimetry parameters in water for the Xoft Axxent X-Ray Source: an electronic brachytherapy source.

A new x-ray source, the model S700 Axxent X-Ray Source (Source), has been developed by Xoft Inc. for electronic brachytherapy. Unlike brachytherapy sources containing radionuclides, this Source may be turned on and off at will and may be operated at variable currents and voltages to change the dose rate and penetration properties. The in-water dosimetry parameters for this electronic brachytherapy source have been determined from measurements and calculations at 40, 45, and 50 kV settings. Monte Carlo simulations of radiation transport utilized the MCNP5 code and the EPDL97-based mcplib04 cross-section library. Inter-tube consistency was assessed for 20 different Sources, measured with a PTW 34013 ionization chamber. As the Source is intended to be used for a maximum of ten treatment fractions, tube stability was also assessed. Photon spectra were measured using a high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector, and calculated using MCNP. Parameters used in the two-dimensional (2D) brachytherapy dosimetry formalism were determined. While the Source was characterized as a point due to the small anode size, < 1 mm, use of the one-dimensional (1D) brachytherapy dosimetry formalism is not recommended due to polar anisotropy. Consequently, 1D brachytherapy dosimetry parameters were not sought. Calculated point-source model radial dose functions at gP(5) were 0.20, 0.24, and 0.29 for the 40, 45, and 50 kV voltage settings, respectively. For 1