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.

Abstract: 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) Ir-192 source and a virtual water phantom were designed, which can be imported into a TPS. Methods: A hypothetical, generic HDR Ir-192 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 Ir-192 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 (R) Brachy with advanced collapsed-cone engine (ACE) and BrachyVision AcuRos (TM)]. 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 Ir-192 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 Ir-192 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.

Abstract: Purpose: The aims of this study were (i) to design a new high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy applicator for treating surface lesions with planning target volumes larger than 3 cm in diameter and up to 5 cm in size, using the microSelectron-HDR or Flexitron afterloader (Elekta Brachytherapy) with a Ir-192 source; (ii) to calculate by means of the Monte Carlo (MC) method the dose distribution for the new applicator when it is placed against a water phantom; and (iii) to validate experimentally the dose distributions in water. Methods: The PENELOPE2008 MC code was used to optimize dwell positions and dwell times. Next, the dose distribution in a water phantom and the leakage dose distribution around the applicator were calculated. Finally, MC data were validated experimentally for a 192Ir mHDR-v2 source by measuring (i) dose distributions with radiochromic EBT3 films (ISP); (ii) percentage depth-dose (PDD) curve with the parallel-plate ionization chamber Advanced Markus (PTW); and (iii) absolute dose rate with EBT3 films and the PinPoint T31016 (PTW) ionization chamber. Results: The new applicator is made of tungsten alloy (Densimet) and consists of a set of interchangeable collimators. Three catheters are used to allocate the source at prefixed dwell positions with preset weights to produce a homogenous dose distribution at the typical prescription depth of 3 mm in water. The same plan is used for all available collimators. PDD, absolute dose rate per unit of air kerma strength, and off-axis profiles in a cylindrical water phantom are reported. These data can be used for treatment planning. Leakage around the applicator was also scored. The dose distributions, PDD, and absolute dose rate calculated agree within experimental uncertainties with the doses measured: differences of MC data with chamber measurements are up to 0.8% and with radiochromic films are up to 3.5%. Conclusions: The new applicator and the dosimetric data provided here will be a valuable tool in clinical practice, making treatment of large skin lesions simpler, faster, and safer. Also the dose to surrounding healthy tissues is minimal.

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: Methods: For Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103, 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 Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103 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 Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103, 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.