AAPM WGDCAB Report 372: A joint AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS report on commissioning of model-based dose calculation algorithms in brachytherapy.

The introduction of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG-186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field-tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well-characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor-specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-Radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG-186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well-known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step-by-step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for 192 Ir-based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.

A MC-based anthropomorphic test case for commissioning model-based dose calculation in interstitial breast 192-Ir HDR brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To provide the first clinical test case for commissioning of 192 Ir brachytherapy model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) according to the AAPM TG-186 report workflow. ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS: A computational patient phantom model was generated from a clinical multi-catheter 192 Ir HDR breast brachytherapy case. Regions of interest (ROIs) were contoured and digitized on the patient CT images and the model was written to a series of DICOM CT images using MATLAB. The model was imported into two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) currently incorporating an MBDCA. Identical treatment plans were prepared using a generic 192 Ir HDR source and the TG-43-based algorithm of each TPS. This was followed by dose to medium in medium calculations using the MBDCA option of each TPS. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation was performed in the model using three different codes and information parsed from the treatment plan exported in DICOM radiation therapy (RT) format. Results were found to agree within statistical uncertainty and the dataset with the lowest uncertainty was assigned as the reference MC dose distribution. DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES: The dataset is available online at http://irochouston.mdanderson.org/rpc/BrachySeeds/BrachySeeds/index.html,https://doi.org/10.52519/00005. Files include the treatment plan for each TPS in DICOM RT format, reference MC dose data in RT Dose format, as well as a guide for database users and all files necessary to repeat the MC simulations. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS: The dataset facilitates the commissioning of brachytherapy MBDCAs using TPS embedded tools and establishes a methodology for the development of future clinical test cases. It is also useful to non-MBDCA adopters for intercomparing MBDCAs and exploring their benefits and limitations, as well as to brachytherapy researchers in need of a dosimetric and/or a DICOM RT information parsing benchmark. Limitations include specificity in terms of radionuclide, source model, clinical scenario, and MBDCA version used for its preparation.

Evaluation of dosimetric effects of metallic artifact reduction and tissue assignment on Monte Carlo dose calculations for 125 I prostate implants.

PURPOSE: Monte Carlo (MC) simulation studies, aimed at evaluating the magnitude of tissue heterogeneity in 125 I prostate permanent seed implant brachytherapy (BT), customarily use clinical post-implant CT images to generate a virtual representation of a realistic patient model (virtual patient model). Metallic artifact reduction (MAR) techniques and tissue assignment schemes (TAS) are implemented on the post-implant CT images to mollify metallic artifacts due to BT seeds and to assign tissue types to the voxels corresponding to the bright seed spots and streaking artifacts, respectively. The objective of this study is to assess the combined influence of MAR and TAS on MC absorbed dose calculations in post-implant CT-based phantoms. The virtual patient models used for 125 I prostate implant MC absorbed dose calculations in this study are derived from the CT images of an external radiotherapy prostate patient without BT seeds and prostatic calcifications, thus averting the need to implement MAR and TAS. METHODS: The geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source is validated by comparing the MC calculated results of the TG-43 parameters for the line source approximation with the TG-43U1S2 consensus data. Four MC absorbed dose calculations are performed in two virtual patient models using the egs_brachy MC code: (1) TG-43-based Dw,w-TG 43 , (2) Dw,w-MBDC that accounts for interseed scattering and attenuation (ISA), (3) Dm,m that examines ISA and tissue heterogeneity by scoring absorbed dose in tissue, and (4) Dw,m that unlike Dm,m scores absorbed dose in water. The MC absorbed doses (1) and (2) are simulated in a TG-43 patient phantom derived by assigning the densities of every voxel to 1.00 g cm-3 (water), whereas MC absorbed doses (3) and (4) are scored in the TG-186 patient phantom generated by mapping the mass density of each voxel to tissue according to a CT calibration curve. The MC absorbed doses calculated in this study are compared with VariSeed v8.0 calculated absorbed doses. To evaluate the dosimetric effect of MAR and TAS, the MC absorbed doses of this work (independent of MAR and TAS) are compared to the MC absorbed doses of different 125 I source models from previous studies that were calculated with different MC codes using post-implant CT-based phantoms generated by implementing MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images. RESULTS: The very good agreement of TG-43 parameters of this study and the published consensus data within 3% validates the geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source. For the clinical studies, the TG-43-based calculations show a D90 overestimation of more than 4% compared to the more realistic MC methods due to ISA and tissue composition. The results of this work generally show few discrepancies with the post-implant CT-based dosimetry studies with respect to the D90 absorbed dose metric parameter. These discrepancies are mainly Type B uncertainties due to the different 125 I source models and MC codes. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images have no dosimetric effect on the 125 I prostate MC absorbed dose calculation in post-implant CT-based phantoms.

A generic TG-186 shielded applicator for commissioning model-based dose calculation algorithms for high-dose-rate 192 Ir brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: A joint working group was created by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) with the charge, among others, to develop a set of well-defined test case plans and perform calculations and comparisons with model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). Its main goal is to facilitate a smooth transition from the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) dose calculation formalism, widely being used in clinical practice for brachytherapy, to the one proposed by Task Group No. 186 (TG-186) for MBDCAs. To do so, in this work a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) 192 Ir shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked. METHODS: A generic HDR 192 Ir shielded applicator was designed based on three commercially available gynecological applicators as well as a virtual cubic water phantom that can be imported into any DICOM-RT compatible treatment planning system (TPS). The absorbed dose distribution around the applicator with the TG-186 192 Ir source located at one dwell position at its center was computed using two commercial TPSs incorporating MBDCAs (Oncentra® Brachy with Advanced Collapsed-cone Engine, ACE™, and BrachyVision ACUROS™) and state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, egs_brachy, Geant4, MCNP6, and Penelope2008. TPS-based volumetric dose distributions for the previously reported "source centered in water" and "source displaced" test cases, and the new "source centered in applicator" test case, were analyzed here using the MCNP6 dose distribution as a reference. Volumetric dose comparisons of TPS results against results for the other MC codes were also performed. Distributions of local and global dose difference ratios are reported. RESULTS: The local dose differences among MC codes are comparable to the statistical uncertainties of the reference datasets for the "source centered in water" and "source displaced" test cases and for the clinically relevant part of the unshielded volume in the "source centered in applicator" case. Larger local differences appear in the shielded volume or at large distances. Considering clinically relevant regions, global dose differences are smaller than the local ones. The most disadvantageous case for the MBDCAs is the one including the shielded applicator. In this case, ACUROS agrees with MC within [-4.2%, +4.2%] for the majority of voxels (95%) while presenting dose differences within [-0.12%, +0.12%] of the dose at a clinically relevant reference point. For ACE, 95% of the total volume presents differences with respect to MC in the range [-1.7%, +0.4%] of the dose at the reference point. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the generic source and generic shielded applicator, together with the previously developed test cases and reference datasets (available in the Brachytherapy Source Registry), lay a solid foundation in supporting uniform commissioning procedures and direct comparisons among treatment planning systems for HDR 192 Ir brachytherapy.

A generic high-dose rate (192)Ir brachytherapy source for evaluation of model-based dose calculations beyond the TG-43 formalism.

PURPOSE: In order to facilitate a smooth transition for brachytherapy dose calculations from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) formalism to model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs), treatment planning systems (TPSs) using a MBDCA require a set of well-defined test case plans characterized by Monte Carlo (MC) methods. This also permits direct dose comparison to TG-43 reference data. Such test case plans should be made available for use in the software commissioning process performed by clinical end users. To this end, a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) (192)Ir source and a virtual water phantom were designed, which can be imported into a TPS. METHODS: A hypothetical, generic HDR (192)Ir source was designed based on commercially available sources as well as a virtual, cubic water phantom that can be imported into any TPS in DICOM format. The dose distribution of the generic (192)Ir source when placed at the center of the cubic phantom, and away from the center under altered scatter conditions, was evaluated using two commercial MBDCAs [Oncentra(®) Brachy with advanced collapsed-cone engine (ACE) and BrachyVision ACUROS™ ]. Dose comparisons were performed using state-of-the-art MC codes for radiation transport, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, GEANT4, MCNP5, MCNP6, and PENELOPE2008. The methodologies adhered to recommendations in the AAPM TG-229 report on high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry. TG-43 dosimetry parameters, an along-away dose-rate table, and primary and scatter separated (PSS) data were obtained. The virtual water phantom of (201)(3) voxels (1 mm sides) was used to evaluate the calculated dose distributions. Two test case plans involving a single position of the generic HDR (192)Ir source in this phantom were prepared: (i) source centered in the phantom and (ii) source displaced 7 cm laterally from the center. Datasets were independently produced by different investigators. MC results were then compared against dose calculated using TG-43 and MBDCA methods. RESULTS: TG-43 and PSS datasets were generated for the generic source, the PSS data for use with the ace algorithm. The dose-rate constant values obtained from seven MC simulations, performed independently using different codes, were in excellent agreement, yielding an average of 1.1109 ± 0.0004 cGy/(h U) (k = 1, Type A uncertainty). MC calculated dose-rate distributions for the two plans were also found to be in excellent agreement, with differences within type A uncertainties. Differences between commercial MBDCA and MC results were test, position, and calculation parameter dependent. On average, however, these differences were within 1% for ACUROS and 2% for ace at clinically relevant distances. CONCLUSIONS: A hypothetical, generic HDR (192)Ir source was designed and implemented in two commercially available TPSs employing different MBDCAs. Reference dose distributions for this source were benchmarked and used for the evaluation of MBDCA calculations employing a virtual, cubic water phantom in the form of a CT DICOM image series. The implementation of a generic source of identical design in all TPSs using MBDCAs is an important step toward supporting univocal commissioning procedures and direct comparisons between TPSs.

Brachytherapy structural shielding calculations using Monte Carlo generated, monoenergetic data.

PURPOSE: To provide a method for calculating the transmission of any broad photon beam with a known energy spectrum in the range of 20-1090 keV, through concrete and lead, based on the superposition of corresponding monoenergetic data obtained from Monte Carlo simulation. METHODS: MCNP5 was used to calculate broad photon beam transmission data through varying thickness of lead and concrete, for monoenergetic point sources of energy in the range pertinent to brachytherapy (20-1090 keV, in 10 keV intervals). The three parameter empirical model introduced by Archer et al. ["Diagnostic x-ray shielding design based on an empirical model of photon attenuation," Health Phys. 44, 507-517 (1983)] was used to describe the transmission curve for each of the 216 energy-material combinations. These three parameters, and hence the transmission curve, for any polyenergetic spectrum can then be obtained by superposition along the lines of Kharrati et al. ["Monte Carlo simulation of x-ray buildup factors of lead and its applications in shielding of diagnostic x-ray facilities," Med. Phys. 34, 1398-1404 (2007)]. A simple program, incorporating a graphical user interface, was developed to facilitate the superposition of monoenergetic data, the graphical and tabular display of broad photon beam transmission curves, and the calculation of material thickness required for a given transmission from these curves. RESULTS: Polyenergetic broad photon beam transmission curves of this work, calculated from the superposition of monoenergetic data, are compared to corresponding results in the literature. A good agreement is observed with results in the literature obtained from Monte Carlo simulations for the photon spectra emitted from bare point sources of various radionuclides. Differences are observed with corresponding results in the literature for x-ray spectra at various tube potentials, mainly due to the different broad beam conditions or x-ray spectra assumed. CONCLUSIONS: The data of this work allow for the accurate calculation of structural shielding thickness, taking into account the spectral variation with shield thickness, and broad beam conditions, in a realistic geometry. The simplicity of calculations also obviates the need for the use of crude transmission data estimates such as the half and tenth value layer indices. Although this study was primarily designed for brachytherapy, results might also be useful for radiology and nuclear medicine facility design, provided broad beam conditions apply.

Identifying afterloading PDR and HDR brachytherapy errors using real-time fiber-coupled Al(2)O(3):C dosimetry and a novel statistical error decision criterion.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The feasibility of a real-time in vivo dosimeter to detect errors has previously been demonstrated. The purpose of this study was to: (1) quantify the sensitivity of the dosimeter to detect imposed treatment errors under well controlled and clinically relevant experimental conditions, and (2) test a new statistical error decision concept based on full uncertainty analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantom studies of two gynecological cancer PDR and one prostate cancer HDR patient treatment plans were performed using tandem ring applicators or interstitial needles. Imposed treatment errors, including interchanged pairs of afterloader guide tubes and 2-20mm source displacements, were monitored using a real-time fiber-coupled carbon doped aluminum oxide (Al(2)O(3):C) crystal dosimeter that was positioned in the reconstructed tumor region. The error detection capacity was evaluated at three dose levels: dwell position, source channel, and fraction. The error criterion incorporated the correlated source position uncertainties and other sources of uncertainty, and it was applied both for the specific phantom patient plans and for a general case (source-detector distance 5-90 mm and position uncertainty 1-4mm). RESULTS: Out of 20 interchanged guide tube errors, time-resolved analysis identified 17 while fraction level analysis identified two. Channel and fraction level comparisons could leave 10mm dosimeter displacement errors unidentified. Dwell position dose rate comparisons correctly identified displacements ≥ 5mm. CONCLUSION: This phantom study demonstrates that Al(2)O(3):C real-time dosimetry can identify applicator displacements ≥ 5mm and interchanged guide tube errors during PDR and HDR brachytherapy. The study demonstrates the shortcoming of a constant error criterion and the advantage of a statistical error criterion.