Comparison of TLD calibration methods for 192Ir dosimetry.

For the purpose of dose measurement using a high-dose rate (192)Ir source, four methods of thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) calibration were investigated. Three of the four calibration methods used the (192)Ir source. Dwell times were calculated to deliver 1 Gy to the TLDs irradiated either in air or water. Dwell time calculations were confirmed by direct measurement using an ionization chamber. The fourth method of calibration used 6 MV photons from a medical linear accelerator, and an energy correction factor was applied to account for the difference in sensitivity of the TLDs in (192)Ir and 6 MV. The results of the four TLD calibration methods are presented in terms of the results of a brachytherapy audit where seven Australian centers irradiated three sets of TLDs in a water phantom. The results were in agreement within estimated uncertainties when the TLDs were calibrated with the (192)Ir source. Calibrating TLDs in a phantom similar to that used for the audit proved to be the most practical method and provided the greatest confidence in measured dose. When calibrated using 6 MV photons, the TLD results were consistently higher than the (192)Ir-calibrated TLDs, suggesting this method does not fully correct for the response of the TLDs when irradiated in the audit phantom.

Australasian brachytherapy audit: results of the 'end-to-end' dosimetry pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: We present the results of a pilot study to test the feasibility of a brachytherapy dosimetry audit. METHODS: The feasibility study was conducted at seven sites from four Australian states in both public and private centres. A purpose-built cylindrical water phantom was imaged using the local imaging protocol and a treatment plan was generated to deliver 1 Gy to the central (1 of 3) thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) from six dwell positions. RESULTS: All centres completed the audit, consisting of three consecutive irradiations, within a 2-h time period, with the exception of one centre that uses a pulsed dose rate brachytherapy unit. All TLD results were within 4.5% of the predicted value, with the exception of one subset where the dwell position step size was incorrectly applied. CONCLUSIONS: While the limited data collected in the study demonstrated considerable heterogeneity in clinical practice, the study proved a brachytherapy dosimetry audit to be feasible. Future studies should include verification of source strength using a Standard Dosimetry Laboratory calibrated chamber, a phantom that more closely mimics the clinical situation, a more comprehensive review of safety and quality assurance (QA) procedures including source dwell time and position accuracy, and a review of patient treatment QA procedures such as applicator position verification.