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.

Development and clinical characterization of a novel 2041 liquid-filled ionization chambers array for high-resolution verification of radiotherapy treatments.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to present a novel 2041 liquid-filled ionization chamber array for high-resolution verification of radiotherapy treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prototype has 2041 ionization chambers of 2.5 × 2.5 mm2 area filled with isooctane. The detection elements are arranged in a central square grid of 43 × 43, totally covering an area of 107.5 × 107.5 mm2 . The central inline and cross-line are extended to 227 mm and the diagonals to 321 mm to be able to perform profile measurements of large fields. We have studied stability, pixel response uniformity, dose rate dependence, depth and field size dependence and anisotropy. We present results for output factors, tongue-and-groove, garden fence, small field profiles, irregular fields, and verification of dose planes of patient treatments. RESULTS: Comparison with other detectors used for small field dosimetry (SFD, CC13, microDiamond) has shown good agreement. Output factors measured with the device for square fields ranging from 10 × 10 to 100 × 100 mm2 showed relative differences within 1%. The response of the detector shows a strong dependence on the angle of incident radiation that needs to be corrected for. On the other hand, inter-pixel relative response variations in the 0.95-1.08 range have been found and corrected for. The application of the device for the verification of dose planes of several treatments has shown gamma passing rates above 97% for tolerances of 2% and 2 mm. The verification of other clinical fields, like small fields and irregular fields used in the commissioning of the TPS, also showed large passing rates. The verification of garden fence and tongue-and-groove fields was affected by volume-averaging effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the liquid filled ionization chamber prototype here presented is appropriate for the verification of radiotherapy treatments with high spatial resolution. Recombination effects do not affect very much the verification of relative dose distributions. However, verification of absolute dose distributions may require normalization to a radiation field which is representative of the dose rate of the treatment delivered.

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.

Commissioning and quality assurance procedures for the HDR Valencia skin applicators.

The Valencia applicators (Nucletron, an Elekta company, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) are cup-shaped tungsten applicators with a flattening filter used to collimate the radiation produced by a high-dose-rate (HDR) 192Ir source, and provide a homogeneous absorbed dose at a given depth. This beam quality provides a good option for the treatment of skin lesions at shallow depth (3-4 mm). The user must perform commissioning and periodic testing of these applicators to guarantee the proper and safe delivery of the intended absorbed dose, as recommended in the standards in radiation oncology. In this study, based on AAPM and GEC-ESTRO guidelines for brachytherapy units and our experience, a set of tests for the commissioning and periodic testing of the Valencia applicators is proposed. These include general considerations, verification of the manufacturer documentation and physical integrity, evaluation of the source-to-indexer distance and reproducibility, setting the library plan in the treatment planning system, evaluation of flatness and symmetry, absolute output and percentage depth dose verification, independent calculation of the treatment time, and visual inspection of the applicator before each treatment. For each test, the proposed methodology, equipment, frequency, expected results, and tolerance levels (when applicable) are provided.

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.

Dosimetric perturbations of a lead shield for surface and interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

In surface and interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy with either (60)Co, (192)Ir, or (169)Yb sources, some radiosensitive organs near the surface may be exposed to high absorbed doses. This may be reduced by covering the implants with a lead shield on the body surface, which results in dosimetric perturbations. Monte Carlo simulations in Geant4 were performed for the three radionuclides placed at a single dwell position. Four different shield thicknesses (0, 3, 6, and 10 mm) and three different source depths (0, 5, and 10 mm) in water were considered, with the lead shield placed at the phantom surface. Backscatter dose enhancement and transmission data were obtained for the lead shields. Results were corrected to account for a realistic clinical case with multiple dwell positions. The range of the high backscatter dose enhancement in water is 3 mm for (60)Co and 1 mm for both (192)Ir and (169)Yb. Transmission data for (60)Co and (192)Ir are smaller than those reported by Papagiannis et al (2008 Med. Phys. 35 4898-4906) for brachytherapy facility shielding; for (169)Yb, the difference is negligible. In conclusion, the backscatter overdose produced by the lead shield can be avoided by just adding a few millimetres of bolus. Transmission data provided in this work as a function of lead thickness can be used to estimate healthy organ equivalent dose saving. Use of a lead shield is justified.

Limitations of the TG-43 formalism for skin high-dose-rate brachytherapy dose calculations.

PURPOSE: In skin high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, sources are located outside, in contact with, or implanted at some depth below the skin surface. Most treatment planning systems use the TG-43 formalism, which is based on single-source dose superposition within an infinite water medium without accounting for the true geometry in which conditions for scattered radiation are altered by the presence of air. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric limitations of the TG-43 formalism in HDR skin brachytherapy and the potential clinical impact. METHODS: Dose rate distributions of typical configurations used in skin brachytherapy were obtained: a 5 cm × 5 cm superficial mould; a source inside a catheter located at the skin surface with and without backscatter bolus; and a typical interstitial implant consisting of an HDR source in a catheter located at a depth of 0.5 cm. Commercially available HDR(60)Co and (192)Ir sources and a hypothetical (169)Yb source were considered. The Geant4 Monte Carlo radiation transport code was used to estimate dose rate distributions for the configurations considered. These results were then compared to those obtained with the TG-43 dose calculation formalism. In particular, the influence of adding bolus material over the implant was studied. RESULTS: For a 5 cm × 5 cm(192)Ir superficial mould and 0.5 cm prescription depth, dose differences in comparison to the TG-43 method were about -3%. When the source was positioned at the skin surface, dose differences were smaller than -1% for (60)Co and (192)Ir, yet -3% for (169)Yb. For the interstitial implant, dose differences at the skin surface were -7% for (60)Co, -0.6% for (192)Ir, and -2.5% for (169)Yb. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the following: (i) for the superficial mould, no bolus is needed; (ii) when the source is in contact with the skin surface, no bolus is needed for either (60)Co and (192)Ir. For lower energy radionuclides like (169)Yb, bolus may be needed; and (iii) for the interstitial case, at least a 0.1 cm bolus is advised for (60)Co to avoid underdosing superficial target layers. For (192)Ir and (169)Yb, no bolus is needed. For those cases where no bolus is needed, its use might be detrimental as the lack of radiation scatter may be beneficial to the patient, although the 2% tolerance for dose calculation accuracy recommended in the AAPM TG-56 report is not fulfilled.

Dosimetry comparison between TG-43 and Monte Carlo calculations using the Freiburg flap for skin high-dose-rate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate whether the delivered dose to the skin surface and at the prescription depth when using a Freiburg flap applicator is in agreement with the one predicted by the treatment planning system (TPS) using the TG-43 dose-calculation formalism. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and radiochromic film measurements have been performed to obtain dose distributions with the source located at the center of one of the spheres and between two spheres. Primary and scatter dose contributions were evaluated to understand the role played by the scatter component. A standard treatment plan was generated using MC- and TG-43-based TPS applying the superposition principle. RESULTS: The MC model has been validated by performing additional simulations in the same conditions but transforming air and Freiburg flap materials into water to match TG-43 parameters. Both dose distributions differ less than 1%. Scatter defect compared with TG-43 data is up to 15% when the source is located at the center of the sphere and up to 25% when the source is between two spheres. Maximum deviations between TPS- and MC-based distributions are of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The deviations in the TG-43-based dose distributions for a standard treatment plan with respect to the MC dose distribution calculated taking into account the composition and shape of the applicator and the surrounding air are lower than 5%. Therefore, this study supports the validity of the TPS used in clinical practice.

Monte Carlo dosimetric study of the Flexisource Co-60 high dose rate source.

PURPOSE: Recently, a new HDR (60)Co brachytherapy source, Flexisource Co-60, has been developed (Nucletron B.V. Veenendaal, The Netherlands). This study aims to obtain dosimetric data for this source for its use in clinical practice as required by AAPM and ESTRO. MATERIAL AND METHODS: TWO MONTE CARLO RADIATION TRANSPORT CODES WERE USED: Penelope2008 and GEANT4. The source was centrally-positioned in a 100 cm radius water phantom. Absorbed dose and collisional kerma were obtained using 0.01 cm (close) and 0.1 cm (far) sized voxels to provide high-resolution dosimetry near (far from) the source. Dose rate distributions obtained with the two Monte Carlo codes were compared. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Simulations performed with those two radiation transport codes showed an agreement typically within 0.2% for r > 0.8 cm and up to 2% closer to the source. Detailed results of dose distributions are being made available. CONCLUSIONS: Dosimetric data are provided for the new Flexisource Co-60 source. These data are meant to be used in treatment planning systems in clinical practice.

Dosimetry revisited for the HDR 192Ir brachytherapy source model mHDR-v2.

PURPOSE: Recently, the manufacturer of the HDR 192Ir mHDR-v2 brachytherapy source reported small design changes (referred to herein as mHDR-v2r) that are within the manufacturing tolerances but may alter the existing dosimetric data for this source. This study aimed to (1) check whether these changes affect the existing dosimetric data published for this source; (2) obtain new dosimetric data in close proximity to the source, including the contributions from 192Ir electrons and considering the absence of electronic equilibrium; and (3) obtain scatter dose components for collapsed cone treatment planning system implementation. METHODS: Three different Monte Carlo (MC) radiation transport codes were used: MCNP5, PENELOPE2008, and GEANT4. The source was centrally positioned in a 40 cm radius water phantom. Absorbed dose and collision kerma were obtained using 0.1 mm (0.5 mm) thick voxels to provide high-resolution dosimetry near (far from) the source. Dose-rate distributions obtained with the three MC codes were compared. RESULTS: Simulations of mHDR-v2 and mHDR-v2r designs performed with three radiation transport codes showed agreement typically within 0.2% for r > or = 0.25 cm. Dosimetric contributions from source electrons were significant for r < 0.25 cm. The dose-rate constant and radial dose function were similar to those from previous MC studies of the mHDR-v2 design. The 2D anisotropy function also coincided with that of the mHDR-v2 design for r > or = 0.25 cm. Detailed results of dose distributions and scatter components are presented for the modified source design. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of these results to prior MC studies showed agreement typically within 0.5% for r > or = 0.25 cm. If dosimetric data for r < 0.25 cm are not needed, dosimetric results from the prior MC studies will be adequate.

Dosimetric evaluation of internal shielding in a high dose rate skin applicator.

PURPOSE: The Valencia HDR applicators are accessories of the microSelectron HDR afterloading system (Nucletron) shaped as truncated cones. The base of the cone is either 2 or 3 cm diameter. They are intended to treat skin lesions, being the typical prescription depth 3 mm. In patients with eyelid lesions, an internal shielding is very useful to reduce the dose to the ocular globe. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the dose enhancement from potential backscatter and electron contamination due to the shielding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two methods were used: a) Monte Carlo simulation, performed with the GEANT4 code, 2 cm Valencia applicator was placed on the surface of a water phantom in which 2 mm lead slab was located at 3 mm depth; b) radiochromic EBT films, used to verify the Monte Carlo results, positioning the films at 1.5, 3, 5 and 7 mm depth, inside the phantom. Two irradiations, with and without the lead shielding slab, were carried out. RESULTS: The Monte Carlo results showed that due to the backscatter component from the lead, the dose level raised to about 200% with a depth range of 0.5 mm. Under the lead the dose level was enhanced to about 130% with a depth range of 1 mm. Two millimeters of lead reduce the dose under the slab with about 60%. These results agree with film measurements within uncertainties. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the use of 2 mm internal lead shielding in eyelid skin treatments with the Valencia applicators were evaluated using MC methods and EBT film dosimetry. The minimum bolus thickness that was needed above and below the shielding was 0.5 mm and 1 mm respectively, and the shielding reduced the absorbed dose delivered to the ocular globe by about 60%.

Revision of the dosimetric parameters of the CSM11 LDR Cs-137 source.

PURPOSE: The clinical use of brachytherapy sources requires the existence of dosimetric data with enough of quality for the proper application of treatments in clinical practice. It has been found that the published data for the low dose rate CSM11 Cs-137 source lacks of smoothness in some regions because the data are too noisy. The purpose of this study was to calculate the dosimetric data for this source in order to provide quality dosimetric improvement of the existing dosimetric data of Ballester et al. [1]. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In order to obtain the dose rate distributions Monte Carlo simulations were done using the GEANT4 code. A spherical phantom 40 cm in radius with the Cs-137 source located at the centre of the phantom was used. RESULTS: The results from Monte Carlo simulations were applied to derive AAPM Task Group 43 dosimetric parameters: anisotropy function, radial dose function, air kerma strength and dose rate constant. The dose rate constant obtained was 1.094 ± 0.002 cGy h-1 U-1. The new calculated data agrees within experimental uncertainties with the existing data of Ballester et al. but without the statistical noise of that study. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained data presently fulfills all the requirements of the TG-43U1 update and thus it can be used in clinical practice.

Study of encapsulated 170Tm sources for their potential use in brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: High dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is currently performed with 192Ir sources, and 60Co has returned recently into clinical use as a source for this kind of cancer treatment. Both radionuclides have mean photon energies high enough to require specific shielded treatment rooms. In recent years, 169Yb has been explored as an alternative for HDR-brachytherapy implants. Although it has mean photon energy lower than 192Ir, it still requires extensive shielding to deliver treatment. An alternative radionuclide for brachytherapy is 170Tm (Z=69) because it has three physical properties adequate for clinical practice: (a) 128.6 day half-life, (b) high specific activity, and (c) mean photon energy of 66.39 keV. The main drawback of this radionuclide is the low photon yield (six photons per 100 electrons emitted). The purpose of this work is to study the dosimetric characteristics of this radionuclide for potential use in HDR-brachytherapy. METHODS: The authors have assumed a theoretical 170Tm cylindrical source encapsulated with stainless steel and typical dimensions taken from the currently available HDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources. The dose-rate distribution was calculated for this source using the GEANT4 Monte Carlo (MC) code considering both photon and electron 170Tm spectra. The AAPM TG-43 U1 brachytherapy dosimetry parameters were derived. To study general properties of 170Tm encapsulated sources, spherical sources encapsulated with stainless steel and platinum were also studied. Moreover, the influence of small variations in the active core and capsule dimensions on the dosimetric characteristics was assessed. Treatment times required for a 170Tm source were compared to those for 192Ir and 169Yb for the same contained activity. RESULTS: Due to the energetic beta spectrum and the large electron yield, the bremsstrahlung contribution to the dose was of the same order of magnitude as from the emitted gammas and characteristic x rays. Moreover, the electron spectrum contribution to the dose was significant up to 4 mm from the source center compared to the photon contribution. The dose-rate constant lamda of the cylindrical source was 1.23 cGy h(-1) U(-1). The behavior of the radial dose function showed promise for applications in brachytherapy. Due to the electron spectrum, the anisotropy was large for r <6 mm. Variations in manufacturing tolerances did not significantly influence the final dosimetry data when expressed in cGy h(-1) U(-1). For typical capsule dimensions, maximum reference dose rates of about 0.2, 10, and 2 Gy min(-1) would then be obtained for 170Tm, 192Ir, and 169Yb, respectively, resulting in treatment times greater than those for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric characteristics of source designs exploiting the low photon energy of 170Tm were studied for potential application in HDR-brachytherapy. Dose-rate distributions were obtained for cylindrical and simplified spherical 170Tm source designs (stainless steel and platinum capsule materials) using MC calculations. Despite the high activity of 170Tm, calculated treatment times were much longer than for 192Ir.

Influence of photon energy spectra from brachytherapy sources on Monte Carlo simulations of kerma and dose rates in water and air.

PURPOSE: For a given radionuclide, there are several photon spectrum choices available to dosimetry investigators for simulating the radiation emissions from brachytherapy sources. This study examines the dosimetric influence of selecting the spectra for 192Ir, 125I, and 103Pd on the final estimations of kerma and dose. METHODS: For 192Ir, 125I, and 103Pd, the authors considered from two to five published spectra. Spherical sources approximating common brachytherapy sources were assessed. Kerma and dose results from GEANT4, MCNP5, and PENELOPE-2008 were compared for water and air. The dosimetric influence of 192Ir, 125I, and 103Pd spectral choice was determined. RESULTS: For the spectra considered, there were no statistically significant differences between kerma or dose results based on Monte Carlo code choice when using the same spectrum. Water-kerma differences of about 2%, 2%, and 0.7% were observed due to spectrum choice for 192Ir, 125, and 103Pd, respectively (independent of radial distance), when accounting for photon yield per Bq. Similar differences were observed for air-kerma rate. However, their ratio (as used in the dose-rate constant) did not significantly change when the various photon spectra were selected because the differences compensated each other when dividing dose rate by air-kerma strength. CONCLUSIONS: Given the standardization of radionuclide data available from the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) and the rigorous infrastructure for performing and maintaining the data set evaluations, NNDC spectra are suggested for brachytherapy simulations in medical physics applications.

Evaluation of interpolation methods for TG-43 dosimetric parameters based on comparison with Monte Carlo data for high-energy brachytherapy sources.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to determine dose distributions for high-energy brachytherapy sources at spatial locations not included in the radial dose function gL(r) and 2D anisotropy function F(r,θ) table entries for radial distance r and polar angle θ. The objectives of this study are as follows: 1) to evaluate interpolation methods in order to accurately derive gL(r) and F(r,θ) from the reported data; 2) to determine the minimum number of entries in gL(r) and F(r,θ) that allow reproduction of dose distributions with sufficient accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four high-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources were studied: 60Co model Co0.A86, 137Cs model CSM-3, 192Ir model Ir2.A85-2, and 169Yb hypothetical model. The mesh used for r was: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2-8 (integer steps) and 10 cm. Four different angular steps were evaluated for F(r,θ): 1°, 2°, 5° and 10°. Linear-linear and logarithmic-linear interpolation was evaluated for gL(r). Linear-linear interpolation was used to obtain F(r,θ) with resolution of 0.05 cm and 1°. Results were compared with values obtained from the Monte Carlo (MC) calculations for the four sources with the same grid. RESULTS: Linear interpolation of gL(r) provided differences ≤ 0.5% compared to MC for all four sources. Bilinear interpolation of F(r,θ) using 1° and 2° angular steps resulted in agreement ≤ 0.5% with MC for 60Co, 192Ir, and 169Yb, while 137Cs agreement was ≤ 1.5% for θ < 15°. CONCLUSIONS: The radial mesh studied was adequate for interpolating gL(r) for high-energy brachytherapy sources, and was similar to commonly found examples in the published literature. For F(r,θ) close to the source longitudinal-axis, polar angle step sizes of 1°-2° were sufficient to provide 2% accuracy for all sources.

TG-43 U1 based dosimetric characterization of model 67-6520 Cs-137 brachytherapy source.

PURPOSE: Brachytherapy treatment has been a cornerstone for management of various cancer sites, particularly for the treatment of gynecological malignancies. In low dose rate brachytherapy treatments, 137Cs sources have been used for several decades. A new 137Cs source design has been introduced (model 67-6520, source B3-561) by Isotope Products Laboratories (IPL) for clinical application. The goal of the present work is to implement the TG-43 U1 protocol in the characterization of the aforementioned 137Cs source. METHODS: The dosimetric characteristics of the IPL 137Cs source are measured using LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters in a Solid Water phantom material and calculated using Monte Carlo simulations with the GEANT4 code in Solid Water and liquid water. The dose rate constant, radial dose function, and two-dimensional anisotropy function of this source model were obtained following the TG-43 U1 recommendations. In addition, the primary and scatter dose separation (PSS) formalism that could be used in convolution/superposition methods to calculate dose distributions around brachytherapy sources in heterogeneous media was studied. RESULTS: The measured and calculated dose rate constants of the IPL 137Cs source in Solid Water were found to be 0.930 (+/-7.3%) and 0.928 (+/-2.6%) cGy h(-1) U(-1), respectively. The agreement between these two methods was within our experimental uncertainties. The Monte Carlo calculated value in liquid water of the dose rate constant was null set=0.948 (+/-2.6%) cGy h(-1) U(-1). Similarly, the agreement between measured and calculated radial dose functions and the anisotropy functions was found to be within +/-5%. In addition, the tabulated data that are required to characterize the source using the PSS formalism were derived. CONCLUSIONS: In this article the complete dosimetry of the newly designed 137Cs IPL source following the AAPM TG-43 U1 dosimetric protocol and the PSS formalism is provided.

Evaluation of high-energy brachytherapy source electronic disequilibrium and dose from emitted electrons.

PURPOSE: The region of electronic disequilibrium near photon-emitting brachytherapy sources of high-energy radionuclides (60Co, 137CS, 192Ir, and 169Yb) and contributions to total dose from emitted electrons were studied using the GEANT4 and PENELOPE Monte Carlo codes. METHODS: Hypothetical sources with active and capsule materials mimicking those of actual sources but with spherical shape were examined. Dose contributions due to source photons, x rays, and bremsstrahlung; source beta-, Auger electrons, and internal conversion electrons; and water collisional kerma were scored. To determine if conclusions obtained for electronic equilibrium conditions and electron dose contribution to total dose for the representative spherical sources could be applied to actual sources, the 192Ir mHDR-v2 source model (Nucletron B.V., Veenendaal, The Netherlands) was simulated for comparison to spherical source results and to published data. RESULTS: Electronic equilibrium within 1% is reached for 60Co, 137CS, 192Ir, and 169Yb at distances greater than 7, 3.5, 2, and 1 mm from the source center, respectively, in agreement with other published studies. At 1 mm from the source center, the electron contributions to total dose are 1.9% and 9.4% for 60Co and 192Ir, respectively. Electron emissions become important (i.e., > 0.5%) within 3.3 mm of 60Co and 1.7 mm of 192Ir sources, yet are negligible over all distances for 137Cs and 169Yb. Electronic equilibrium conditions along the transversal source axis for the mHDR-v2 source are comparable to those of the spherical sources while electron dose to total dose contribution are quite different. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic equilibrium conditions obtained for spherical sources could be generalized to actual sources while electron contribution to total dose depends strongly on source dimensions, material composition, and electron spectra.

An approach to using conventional brachytherapy software for clinical treatment planning of complex, Monte Carlo-based brachytherapy dose distributions.

Certain brachytherapy dose distributions, such as those for LDR prostate implants, are readily modeled by treatment planning systems (TPS) that use the superposition principle of individual seed dose distributions to calculate the total dose distribution. However, dose distributions for brachytherapy treatments using high-Z shields or having significant material heterogeneities are not currently well modeled using conventional TPS. The purpose of this study is to establish a new treatment planning technique (Tufts technique) that could be applied in some clinical situations where the conventional approach is not acceptable and dose distributions present cylindrical symmetry. Dose distributions from complex brachytherapy source configurations determined with Monte Carlo methods were used as input data. These source distributions included the 2 and 3 cm diameter Valencia skin applicators from Nucletron, 4-8 cm diameter AccuBoost peripheral breast brachytherapy applicators from Advanced Radiation Therapy, and a 16 mm COMS-based eye plaque using 103Pd, 125I, and 131Cs seeds. Radial dose functions and 2D anisotropy functions were obtained by positioning the coordinate system origin along the dose distribution cylindrical axis of symmetry. Origin:tissue distance and active length were chosen to minimize TPS interpolation errors. Dosimetry parameters were entered into the PINNACLE TPS, and dose distributions were subsequently calculated and compared to the original Monte Carlo-derived dose distributions. The new planning technique was able to reproduce brachytherapy dose distributions for all three applicator types, producing dosimetric agreement typically within 2% when compared with Monte Carlo-derived dose distributions. Agreement between Monte Carlo-derived and planned dose distributions improved as the spatial resolution of the fitted dosimetry parameters improved. For agreement within 5% throughout the clinical volume, spatial resolution of dosimetry parameter data < or = 0.1 cm was required, and the virtual brachytherapy source data set included over 5000 data points. On the other hand, the lack of consideration for applicator heterogeneity effect caused conventional dose overestimates exceeding an order of magnitude in regions of clinical interest. This approach is rationalized by the improved dose estimates. In conclusion, a new technique was developed to incorporate complex Monte Carlo-based brachytherapy dose distributions into conventional TPS. These results are generalizable to other brachytherapy source types and other TPS.