|
|
Piriz, G. H., Gonzalez-Sprinberg, G. A., Ballester, F., & Vijande, J. (2024). Dosimetry of Large Field Valencia applicators for Cobalt-60-based brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 51, 5094–5098.
Abstract: BackgroundNon-melanoma skin cancer is one of the most common types of cancer and one of the main approaches is brachytherapy. For small lesions, the treatment of this cancer with brachytherapy can be done with two commercial applicators, one of these is the Large Field Valencia Applicators (LFVA).PurposeThe aim of this study is to test the capabilities of the LFVA to use clinically 60Co sources instead of the 192Ir ones. This study was designed for the same dwell positions and weights for both sources.MethodsThe Penelope Monte Carlo code was used to evaluate dose distribution in a water phantom when a 60Co source is considered. The LFVA design and the optimized dwell weights reported for the case of 192Ir are maintained with the only exception of the dwell weight of the central position, that was increased. 2D dose distributions, field flatness, symmetry and the leakage dose distribution around the applicator were calculated.ResultsWhen comparing the dose distributions of both sources, field flatness and symmetry remain unchanged. The only evident difference is an increase of the penumbra regions for all depths when using the 60Co source. Regarding leakage, the maximum dose within the air volume surrounding the applicator is in the order of 20% of the prescription dose for the 60Co source, but it decreases to less than 5% at about 1 cm distance.ConclusionsFlatness and symmetry remains unaltered as compared with 192Ir sources, while an increase in leakage has been observed. This proves the feasibility of using the LFVA in a larger range of clinical applications.
|
|
|
|
Pujades, M. C., Granero, D., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., Papagiannis, P., et al. (2014). Air-kerma evaluation at the maze entrance of HDR brachytherapy facilities. J. Radiol. Prot., 34(4), 741–753.
Abstract: In the absence of procedures for evaluating the design of brachytherapy (BT) facilities for radiation protection purposes, the methodology used for external beam radiotherapy facilities is often adapted. The purpose of this study is to adapt the NCRP 151 methodology for estimating the air-kerma rate at the door in BT facilities. Such methodology was checked against Monte Carlo (MC) techniques using the code Geant4. Five different facility designs were studied for Ir-192 and Co-60 HDR applications to account for several different bunker layouts. For the estimation of the lead thickness needed at the door, the use of transmission data for the real spectra at the door instead of the ones emitted by Ir-192 and Co-60 will reduce the lead thickness by a factor of five for Ir-192 and ten for Co-60. This will significantly lighten the door and hence simplify construction and operating requirements for all bunkers. The adaptation proposed in this study to estimate the air-kerma rate at the door depends on the complexity of the maze: it provides good results for bunkers with a maze (i.e. similar to those used for linacs for which the NCRP 151 methodology was developed) but fails for less conventional designs. For those facilities, a specific Monte Carlo study is in order for reasons of safety and cost-effectiveness.
|
|
|
|
Gimenez-Alventosa, V., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., & Perez-Calatayud, J. (2016). Transit dose comparisons for Co-60 and Ir-192 HDR sources. J. Radiol. Prot., 36(4), 858–864.
Abstract: The goal of this study is to evaluate the ambient dose due to the transit of high dose rate (HDR) Co-60 sources along a transfer tube as compared to Ir-192 ones in a realistic clinical scenario. This goal is accomplished by evaluating air-kerma differences with Monte Carlo calculations using PENELOPE2011. Scatter from both the afterloader and the patient was not taken into account. Two sources, mHDR-v2 and Flexisource Co-60, (Elekta Brachytherapy, Veenendaal, the Netherlands) have been considered. These sources were simulated within a standard transfer tube located in an infinite air phantom. The movement of the source was included by displacing their positions along the connecting tube from z = – 75 cm to z = + 75 cm and combining them. Since modern afterloaders like Flexitron (Elekta) or Saginova (BEBIG GmbH) are able to use equally 192Ir and 60Co sources, it was assumed that both sources are displaced with equal speed. Typical HDR source activity content values were provided by the manufacturer. 2D distributions were obtained with type-A uncertainties (k = 2) less than 0.01%. From those, the air-kerma ratio Co-60/Ir-192 was evaluated weighted by their corresponding typical activities. It was found that it varies slowly with distance (less than 10% variation at 75 cm) but strongly in time due to the shorter half-life of the 192Ir (73.83 d). The maximum ratio is located close to the tube. It reaches a value of 0.57 when the typical activity of the sources at the time when they were installed by the vendor was used. Such ratio increases up to 1.28 at the end of the recommended working life (90 d) of the Ir-192 source. Co-60/Ir-192 air-kerma ratios are almost constant (0.51-0.57) in the vicinity of the source-tube with recent installed sources. Nevertheless, air-kerma ratios increase rapidly (1.15-1.29) whenever the Ir-192 is approaching the end of its life. In case of a medical event requiring the medical staff to access the treatment room, these ratios indicate that the dosimetric impact on the medical team will be lower, with a few exceptions, in the case of Co-60-based HDR brachytherapy as compared to Ir-192-based one when typical air-kerma strength values are considered.
|
|
|
|
Calatayud-Jordan, J., Candela-Juan, C., Palma, J. D., Pujades-Claumarchirant, M. C., Soriano, A., Gracia-Ochoa, M., et al. (2021). Influence of the simultaneous calibration of multiple ring dosimeters on the individual absorbed dose. J. Radiol. Prot., 41(2), 384–397.
Abstract: Ring dosimeters for personal dosimetry are calibrated in accredited laboratories following ISO 4037-3 guidelines. The simultaneous irradiation of multiple dosimeters would save time, but has to be carefully studied, since the scattering conditions could change and influence the absorbed dose in nearby dosimeters. Monte Carlo simulations using PENELOPE-2014 were performed to explore the need to increase the uncertainty of H-p (0.07) in the simultaneous irradiation of three and five DXT-RAD 707H-2 (Thermo Scientific) ring dosimeters with beam qualities: N-30, N-80 and N-300. Results show that the absorbed dose in each dosimeter is compatible with each of the others and with the reference simulation (a single dosimeter), with a coverage probability of 95% (k = 2). Comparison with experimental data yielded consistent results with the same coverage probability. Therefore, five ring dosimeters can be simultaneously irradiated with beam qualities ranging, at least, between N-30 and N-300 with a negligible impact on the uncertainty of H-p (0.07).
|
|
|
|
Hornillos, M. B. G., Gorlychev, V., Caballero, R., Cortes, G., Poch, A., Pretel, C., et al. (2011). Monte Carlo Simulations for the Study of a Moderated Neutron Detector. J. Korean Phys. Soc., 59(2), 1573–1576.
Abstract: This work presents the Monte Carlo simulations performed with the MCNPX and GEANT4 codes for the design of a BEta deLayEd Neutron detector, BELEN-20. This detector will be used for the study of beta delayed neutron emission and consists of a block of polyethylene with dimensions 90 x 90 x 80 cm(3) and 20 cylindrical (3)He gas counters. The results of these simulations have been validated experimentally with a (252)Cf source in the laboratory at UPC, Barcelona. Also the first experiment with this detector has been carried out in November 2009 in JYFL, Finland. In this experiment the neutron emission probability after beta decay of the fission products (88)Br, (94,95)Rb, and (138)I has been measured; this data is still under analysis. Simulations with MCNPX and GEANT4 have been performed in order to obtain the efficiency of the BELEN-20 detector for each of the above nuclei using the neutron energy distribution corresponding to each nucleus.
|
|
