Brachytherapy treatment verification using gamma radiation from the internal treatment source combined with an imaging panel-a phantom study.

Brachytherapy has an excellent clinical outcome for different treatment sites. However,in vivotreatment verification is not performed in the majority of hospitals due to the lack of proper monitoring systems. This study investigates the use of an imaging panel (IP) and the photons emitted by a high dose rate (HDR)192Ir source to track source motion and obtain some information related to the patient anatomy. The feasibility of this approach was studied by monitoring the treatment delivery to a 3D printed phantom that mimicks a prostate patient. A 3D printed phantom was designed with a template for needle insertion, a cavity ('rectum') to insert an ultrasound probe, and lateral cavities used to place tissue-equivalent materials. CT images were acquired to create HDR192Ir treatment plans with a range of dwell times, interdwell distances and needle arrangements. Treatment delivery was verified with an IP placed at several positions around the phantom using radiopaque markers on the outer surface to register acquired IP images with the planning CT. All dwell positions were identified using acquisition times ≤0.11 s (frame rates ≥ 9 fps). Interdwell distances and dwell positions (in relation to the IP) were verified with accuracy better than 0.1 cm. Radiopaque markers were visible in the acquired images and could be used for registration with CT images. Uncertainties for image registration (IP and planning CT) between 0.1 and 0.4 cm. The IP is sensitive to tissue-mimicking insert composition and showed phantom boundaries that could be used to improve treatment verification. The IP provided sufficient time and spatial resolution for real-time source tracking and allows for the registration of the planning CT and IP images. The results obtained in this study indicate that several treatment errors could be detected including swapped catheters, incorrect dwell times and dwell positions.

A comparison study between single- and dual-energy CT density extraction methods for neurological proton monte carlo treatment planning.

Monte Carlo proton dose calculations requires mass densities calculated from the patient CT image. This work investigates the impact of different single-energy CT (SECT) and dual-energy CT (DECT) to density conversion methods in proton dose distributions for brain tumours.Material and methods: Head CT scans for four patients were acquired in SECT and DECT acquisition modes. Commercial software was used to reconstruct DirectDensity™ images in Relative Electron Densities (RED, [Formula: see text]) and to obtain DECT-based pseudo-monoenergetic images (PMI). PMI and SECT images were converted to RED using piecewise linear interpolations calibrated on a head-sized phantom, these fits were referred to as "PMI2RED" and "CT2RED". Two DECT-based calibration methods ("Hünemohr-15it" and "Saito-15it") were also investigated. [Formula: see text] images were converted to mass-densities ([Formula: see text]) to investigate [Formula: see text]differences and one representative patient case was used to make a proton treatment plan. Using CT2RED as reference method, dose distribution differences in the target and in five organs-at-risk (OARs) were quantified.Results: In the phantom study, Saito-15it and Hünemohr-15it produced the lowest [Formula: see text]root-mean-square error (0.7%) and DirectDensity™ the highest error (2.7%). The proton plan evaluated in the Saito-15it and Hünemohr-15it datasets showed the largest relative differences compared to initial CT2RED plan down to -6% of the prescribed dose. Compared to CT2RED, average range differences were calculated: -0.1 ± 0.3 mm for PMI2RED; -0.8 ± 0.4 mm for Hünemohr-15it, and -1.2 ± 0.4 mm for Saito-15it.Conclusion: Given the wide choice of available conversion methods, studies investigating the density accuracy for proton dose calculations are necessary. However, there is still a gap between performing accuracy studies in reference [Formula: see text]phantoms and applying these methods in human CT images. For this treatment case, the PMI2RED method was equivalent to the conventional CT2RED method in terms of dose distribution, CTV coverage and OAR sparing, whereas Hünemohr-15it and Saito-15it presented the largest differences.

The contribution from transit dose for (192)Ir HDR brachytherapy treatments.

Brachytherapy treatment planning systems that use model-based dose calculation algorithms employ a more accurate approach that replaces the TG43-U1 water dose formalism and adopt the TG-186 recommendations regarding composition and geometry of patients and other relevant effects. However, no recommendations were provided on the transit dose due to the source traveling inside the patient. This study describes a methodology to calculate the transit dose using information from the treatment planning system (TPS) and considering the source's instantaneous and average speed for two prostate and two gynecological cases. The trajectory of the (192)Ir HDR source was defined by importing applicator contour points and dwell positions from the TPS. The transit dose distribution was calculated using the maximum speed, the average speed and uniform accelerations obtained from the literature to obtain an approximate continuous source distribution simulated with a Monte Carlo code. The transit component can be negligible or significant depending on the speed profile adopted, which is not clearly reported in the literature. The significance of the transit dose can also be due to the treatment modality; in our study interstitial treatments exhibited the largest effects. Considering the worst case scenario the transit dose can reach 3% of the prescribed dose in a gynecological case with four catheters and up to 11.1% when comparing the average prostate dose for a case with 16 catheters. The transit dose component increases by increasing the number of catheters used for HDR brachytherapy, reducing the total dwell time per catheter or increasing the number of dwell positions with low dwell times. This contribution may become significant (>5%) if it is not corrected appropriately. The transit dose cannot be completely compensated using simple dwell time corrections since it may have a non-uniform distribution. An accurate measurement of the source acceleration and maximum speed should be incorporated in clinical practice or provided by the manufacturer to determine the transit dose component with high accuracy.

Determination of transit dose profile for a (192)Ir HDR source.

PURPOSE: Several studies have reported methodologies to calculate and correct the transit dose component of the moving radiation source for high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning systems. However, most of these works employ the average source speed, which varies significantly with the measurement technique used, and does not represent a realistic speed profile, therefore, providing an inaccurate dose determination. In this work, the authors quantified the transit dose component of a HDR unit based on the measurement of the instantaneous source speed to produce more accurate dose values. METHODS: The Nucletron microSelectron-HDR Ir-192 source was characterized considering the Task Group 43 (TG-43U1) specifications. The transit dose component was considered through the calculation of the dose distribution using a Monte Carlo particle transport code, MCNP5, for each source position and correcting it by the source speed. The instantaneous source speed measurements were performed in a previous work using two optical fibers connected to a photomultiplier and an oscilloscope. Calculated doses were validated by comparing relative dose profiles with those obtained experimentally using radiochromic films. RESULTS: TG-43U1 source parameters were calculated to validate the Monte Carlo simulations. These agreed with the literature, with differences below 1% for the majority of the points. Calculated dose profiles without transit dose were also validated by comparison with ONCENTRA(®) Brachy v. 3.3 dose values, yielding differences within 1.5%. Dose profiles obtained with MCNP5 corrected using the instantaneous source speed profile showed differences near dwell positions of up to 800% in comparison to values corrected using the average source speed, but they are in good agreement with the experimental data, showing a maximum discrepancy of approximately 3% of the maximum dose. Near a dwell position the transit dose is about 22% of the dwell dose delivered by the source dwelling 1 s and reached 104.0 cGy per irradiation in a hypothetical clinical case studied in this work. CONCLUSIONS: The present work demonstrated that the transit dose correction based on average source speed fails to accurately correct the dose, indicating that the correct speed profile should be considered. The impact on total dose due to the transit dose correction near the dwell positions is significant and should be considered more carefully in treatments with high dose rate, several catheters, multiple dwell positions, small dwell times, and several fractions.