| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> |
|
Granero, D., Candela-Juan, C., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., Jacob, D., et al. (2016). Technical Note: Dosimetry of Leipzig and Valencia applicators without the plastic cap. Med. Phys., 43(5), 2087–4pp.
Abstract: Purpose: High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for treatment of small skin lesions using the Leipzig and Valencia applicators is a widely used technique. These applicators are equipped with an attachable plastic cap to be placed during fraction delivery to ensure electronic equilibrium and to prevent secondary electrons from reaching the skin surface. The purpose of this study is to report on the dosimetric impact of the cap being absent during HDR fraction delivery, which has not been explored previously in the literature. Methods: GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations (version 10.0) have been performed for the Leipzig and Valencia applicators with and without the plastic cap. In order to validate the Monte Carlo simulations, experimental measurements using radiochromic films have been done. Results: Dose absorbed within 1 mm of the skin surface increases by a factor of 1500% for the Leipzig applicators and of 180% for the Valencia applicators. Deeper than 1 mm, the overdosage flattens up to a 10% increase. Conclusions: Differences of treating with or without the plastic cap are significant. Users must check always that the plastic cap is in place before any treatment in order to avoid overdosage of the skin. Prior to skin HDR fraction delivery, the timeout checklist should include verification of the cap placement. (C) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
|
|
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.
Keywords: Monte Carlo; dosimetry; HDR brachytherapy; transit dose
|
|
Gimenez-Alventosa, V., Gimenez, V., Ballester, F., Vijande, J., & Andreo, P. (2018). Correction factors for ionization chamber measurements with the 'Valencia' and 'large field Valencia' brachytherapy applicators. Phys. Med. Biol., 63(12), 125004–10pp.
Abstract: Treatment of small skin lesions using HDR brachytherapy applicators is a widely used technique. The shielded applicators currently available in clinical practice are based on a tungsten-alloy cup that collimates the source-emitted radiation into a small region, hence protecting nearby tissues. The goal of this manuscript is to evaluate the correction factors required for dose measurements with a plane-parallel ionization chamber typically used in clinical brachytherapy for the 'Valencia' and 'large field Valencia' shielded applicators. Monte Carlo simulations have been performed using the PENELOPE-2014 system to determine the absorbed dose deposited in a water phantom and in the chamber active volume with a Type A uncertainty of the order of 0.1%. The average energies of the photon spectra arriving at the surface of the water phantom differ by approximately 10%, being 384 keV for the 'Valencia' and 343 keV for the 'large field Valencia'. The ionization chamber correction factors have been obtained for both applicators using three methods, their values depending on the applicator being considered. Using a depth-independent global chamber perturbation correction factor and no shift of the effective point of measurement yields depth-dose differences of up to 1% for the 'Valencia' applicator. Calculations using a depth-dependent global perturbation factor, or a shift of the effective point of measurement combined with a constant partial perturbation factor, result in differences of about 0.1% for both applicators. The results emphasize the relevance of carrying out detailed Monte Carlo studies for each shielded brachytherapy applicator and ionization chamber.
|
|
Fletcher, E. M., Ballester, F., Beaulieu, L., Morrison, H., Poher, A., Rivard, M. J., et al. (2024). Generation and comparison of 3D dosimetric reference datasets for COMS eye plaque brachytherapy using model-based dose calculations. Med. Phys., 51, 694–706.
Abstract: PurposeA joint Working Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) was created to aid in the transition from the AAPM TG-43 dose calculation formalism, the current standard, to model-based dose calculations. This work establishes the first test cases for low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy using model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs).Acquisition and Validation MethodsFive test cases are developed: (1) a single model 6711 125I brachytherapy seed in water, 13 seeds (2) individually and (3) in combination in water, (4) the full Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) 16-mm eye plaque in water, and (5) the full plaque in a realistic eye phantom. Calculations are done with four Monte Carlo (MC) codes and a research version of a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). For all test cases, local agreement of MC codes was within & SIM;2.5% and global agreement was & SIM;2% (4% for test case 5). MC agreement was within expected uncertainties. Local agreement of TPS with MC was within 5% for test case 1 and & SIM;20% for test cases 4 and 5, and global agreement was within 0.4% for test case 1 and 10% for test cases 4 and 5.Data Format and Usage NotesDose distributions for each set of MC and TPS calculations are available online () along with input files and all other information necessary to repeat the calculations.Potential ApplicationsThese data can be used to support commissioning of MBDCAs for low-energy brachytherapy as recommended by TGs 186 and 221 and AAPM Report 372. This work additionally lays out a sample framework for the development of test cases that can be extended to other applications beyond eye plaque brachytherapy.
Keywords: Monte Carlo; ocular brachytherapy; treatment planning
|
|
Candela-Juan, C., Vijande, J., Garcia-Martinez, T., Niatsetski, Y., Nauta, G., Schuurman, J., et al. (2015). Comparison and uncertainty evaluation of different calibration protocols and ionization chambers for low-energy surface brachytherapy dosimetry. Med. Phys., 42(8), 4954–4964.
Abstract: Purpose: A surface electronic brachytherapy (EBT) device is in fact an x-ray source collimated with specific applicators. Low-energy (<100 kVp) x-ray beam dosimetry faces several challenges that need to be addressed. A number of calibration protocols have been published for x-ray beam dosimetry. The media in which measurements are performed are the fundamental difference between them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface dose rate of a low-energy x-ray source with small field applicators using different calibration standards and different small-volume ionization chambers, comparing the values and uncertainties of each methodology. Methods: The surface dose rate of the EBT unit Esteya (Elekta Brachytherapy, The Netherlands), a 69.5 kVp x-ray source with applicators of 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mm diameter, was evaluated using the AAPM TG-61 (based on air kerma) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 (based on absorbed dose to water) dosimetry protocols for low-energy photon beams. A plane parallel T34013 ionization chamber (PTW Freiburg, Germany) calibrated in terms of both absorbed dose to water and air kerma was used to compare the two dosimetry protocols. Another PTW chamber of the same model was used to evaluate the reproducibility between these chambers. Measurements were also performed with two different Exradin A20 (Standard Imaging, Inc., Middleton, WI) chambers calibrated in terms of air kerma. Results: Differences between surface dose rates measured in air and in water using the T34013 chamber range from 1.6% to 3.3%. No field size dependence has been observed. Differences are below 3.7% when measurements with the A20 and the T34013 chambers calibrated in air are compared. Estimated uncertainty (with coverage factor k = 1) for the T34013 chamber calibrated in water is 2.2%-2.4%, whereas it increases to 2.5% and 2.7% for the A20 and T34013 chambers calibrated in air, respectively. The output factors, measured with the PTW chambers, differ by less than 1.1% for any applicator size when compared to the output factors that were measured with the A20 chamber. Conclusions: Measurements using both dosimetric protocols are consistent, once the overall uncertainties are considered. There is also consistency between measurements performed with both chambers calibrated in air. Both the T34013 and A20 chambers have negligible stem effect. Any x-ray surface brachytherapy system, including Esteya, can be characterized using either one of these calibration protocols and ionization chambers. Having less correction factors, lower uncertainty, and based on measurements, performed in closer to clinical conditions, the TRS-398 protocol seems to be the preferred option.
|