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: 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.

Abstract: 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 x 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 Co-60 and Ir-192 sources and a hypothetical Yb-169 source were considered. The Geant4Monte 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 x 5 cm Ir-192 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 Co-60 and Ir-192, yet -3% for Yb-169. For the interstitial implant, dose differences at the skin surface were -7% for Co-60, -0.6% for Ir-192, and -2.5% for Yb-169. 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 Co-60 and Ir-192. For lower energy radionuclides like Yb-169, bolus may be needed; and (iii) for the interstitial case, at least a 0.1 cm bolus is advised for Co-60 to avoid underdosing superficial target layers. For Ir-192 and Yb-169, 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.