Abstract: The aim of this work is to analyse the scattered radiation produced by the mobile accelerator Mobetron 1000. To do so, detailed Monte Carlo simulations using two different codes, Penelope2008 and Geant4, were performed. Measurements were also done. To quantify the attenuation due to the internal structures, present in the accelerator head, on the scattered radiation produced, some of the main structural shielding in the Mobetron 1000 has been incorporated into the geometry simulation. Results are compared with measurements. Some discrepancies between the calculated and measured dose values were found. These differences can be traced back to the importance of the radiation component due to low energy scattered electrons. This encouraged us to perform additional calculations to separate the role played by this component. Ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), outside of the operating room (OR) has been evaluated using Geant4. H*(10) has been measured inside and outside the OR, being its values compatible with those reported in the literature once the low energy electron component is removed. With respect to the role played by neutrons, estimations of neutron H*(10) using Geant4 together with H*(10) measurements has been performed for the case of the 12 MeV electron beam. The values obtained agree with the experimental values existing in the literature, being much smaller than those registered in conventional accelerators. This study is a useful tool for the clinical user to investigate the radiation protection issues arising with the use of these accelerators in ORs without structural shielding. These results will also enable to better fix the maximum number of treatments that could be performed while insuring adequate radiological protection of workers and public in the hospital.

Abstract: PurposeA 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) Ir-192 shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked. MethodsA generic HDR Ir-192 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 Ir-192 source located at one dwell position at its center was computed using two commercial TPSs incorporating MBDCAs (Oncentra((R)) 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsThe 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 Ir-192 brachytherapy.

Abstract: Purpose: To provide a practical solution that can be adopted in clinical routine to fulfill the AAPM-ESTRO recommendations regarding quality assurance of seeds used in prostate permanent brachytherapy. The aim is to design a new insert for the well-ionization chamber SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 (PTW, Germany) that allows evaluating the mean air-kerma strength of up to ten I-125 seeds with one single measurement instead of measuring each seed individually. Material and methods: The material required is: a) the SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 well-ionization chamber provided with a PTW insert to measure the air-kerma strength S-K of one single seed at a time; b) a newly designed insert that accommodates ten seeds in one column, which allows measuring the mean S-K of the ten seeds in one single measurement; and c) a container with ten seeds from the same batch and class of the seeds used for the patient implant, and a set of nine non-radioactive seeds.The new insert is characterized by determining its calibration coefficient, used to convert the reading of the well-chamber when ten seeds are measured to their mean S-K. The proposed method is validated by comparing the mean S-K of the ten seeds obtained from the new insert with the individual measurement of S-K of each seed, evaluated with the PTW insert. Results: The ratio between the calibration coefficient of the new insert and the calibration coefficient of the PTW insert for the SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 is 1.135 +/- 0.007 (k = 1). The mean S-K of a set of ten seeds evaluated with this new system is in agreement with the mean value obtained from measuring independently the S-K of each seed. Conclusions: The new insert and procedure allow evaluating the mean S-K of ten seeds prior to the implant in a single measurement. The method is faster and more efficient from radiation protection point of view than measuring the individual S-K of each seed.