Abstract: Three different correction factors for measurements with the parallel-plate ionization chamber PTW T34013 on the Esteya electronic brachytherapy unit have been investigated. This chamber type is recommended by AAPM TG-253 for depth-dose measurements in the 69.5 kV x-ray beam generated by the Esteya unit. Monte Carlo simulations using the PENELOPE-2018 system were performed to determine the absorbed dose deposited in water and in the chamber sensitive volume at different depths with a Type A uncertainty smaller than 0.1%. Chamber-to-chamber differences have been explored performing measurements using three different chambers. The range of conical applicators available, from 10 to 30 mm in diameter, has been explored. Using a depth-independent global chamber perturbation correction factor without a shift of the effective point of measurement yielded differences between the absorbed dose to water and the corrected absorbed dose in the sensitive volume of the chamber of up to 1% and 0.6% for the 10 mm and 30 mm applicators, respectively. Calculations using a depth-dependent perturbation factor, including or excluding a shift of the effective point of measurement, resulted in depth-dose differences of about +/- 0.5% or less for both applicators. The smallest depth-dose differences were obtained when a shift of the effective point of measurement was implemented, being displaced 0.4 mm towards the center of the sensitive volume of the chamber. The correction factors were obtained with combined uncertainties of 0.4% (k = 2). Uncertainties due to chamber-to-chamber differences are found to be lower than 2%. The results emphasize the relevance of carrying out detailed Monte Carlo studies for each electronic brachytherapy device and ionization chamber used for its dosimetry.

Abstract: Purpose. To estimate Type B uncertainties in absorbed-dose calculations arising from the different implementations in current state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes of low-energy photon cross-sections (<200 keV). Methods. MC simulations are carried out using three codes widely used in the low-energy domain: PENELOPE-2018, EGSnrc, and MCNP. Three dosimetry-relevant quantities are considered: mass energy-absorption coefficients for water, air, graphite, and their respective ratios; absorbed dose; and photon-fluence spectra. The absorbed dose and the photon-fluence spectra are scored in a spherical water phantom of 15 cm radius. Benchmark simulations using similar cross-sections have been performed. The differences observed between these quantities when different cross-sections are considered are taken to be a good estimator for the corresponding Type B uncertainties. Results. A conservative Type B uncertainty for the absorbed dose (k = 2) of 1.2%-1.7% (<50 keV), 0.6%-1.2% (50-100 keV), and 0.3% (100-200 keV) is estimated. The photon-fluence spectrum does not present clinically relevant differences that merit considering additional Type B uncertainties except for energies below 25 keV, where a Type B uncertainty of 0.5% is obtained. Below 30 keV, mass energy-absorption coefficients show Type B uncertainties (k = 2) of about 1.5% (water and air), and 2% (graphite), diminishing in all materials for larger energies and reaching values about 1% (40-50 keV) and 0.5% (50-75 keV). With respect to their ratios, the only significant Type B uncertainties are observed in the case of the water-to-graphite ratio for energies below 30 keV, being about 0.7% (k = 2). Conclusions. In contrast with the intermediate (about 500 keV) or high (about 1 MeV) energy domains, Type B uncertainties due to the different cross-sections implementation cannot be considered subdominant with respect to Type A uncertainties or even to other sources of Type B uncertainties (tally volume averaging, manufacturing tolerances, etc). Therefore, the values reported here should be accommodated within the uncertainty budget in low-energy photon dosimetry studies.

Abstract: Purpose Monte Carlo (MC) simulation studies, aimed at evaluating the magnitude of tissue heterogeneity in I-125 prostate permanent seed implant brachytherapy (BT), customarily use clinical post-implant CT images to generate a virtual representation of a realistic patient model (virtual patient model). Metallic artifact reduction (MAR) techniques and tissue assignment schemes (TAS) are implemented on the post-implant CT images to mollify metallic artifacts due to BT seeds and to assign tissue types to the voxels corresponding to the bright seed spots and streaking artifacts, respectively. The objective of this study is to assess the combined influence of MAR and TAS on MC absorbed dose calculations in post-implant CT-based phantoms. The virtual patient models used for I-125 prostate implant MC absorbed dose calculations in this study are derived from the CT images of an external radiotherapy prostate patient without BT seeds and prostatic calcifications, thus averting the need to implement MAR and TAS. Methods The geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source is validated by comparing the MC calculated results of the TG-43 parameters for the line source approximation with the TG-43U1S2 consensus data. Four MC absorbed dose calculations are performed in two virtual patient models using the egs_brachy MC code: (1) TG-43-based D-w,w-TG(43), (2) D-w,D-w-MBDC that accounts for interseed scattering and attenuation (ISA), (3) D-m,D-m that examines ISA and tissue heterogeneity by scoring absorbed dose in tissue, and (4) D-w,D-m that unlike D-m,D-m scores absorbed dose in water. The MC absorbed doses (1) and (2) are simulated in a TG-43 patient phantom derived by assigning the densities of every voxel to 1.00 g cm(-3) (water), whereas MC absorbed doses (3) and (4) are scored in the TG-186 patient phantom generated by mapping the mass density of each voxel to tissue according to a CT calibration curve. The MC absorbed doses calculated in this study are compared with VariSeed v8.0 calculated absorbed doses. To evaluate the dosimetric effect of MAR and TAS, the MC absorbed doses of this work (independent of MAR and TAS) are compared to the MC absorbed doses of different I-125 source models from previous studies that were calculated with different MC codes using post-implant CT-based phantoms generated by implementing MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images. Results The very good agreement of TG-43 parameters of this study and the published consensus data within 3% validates the geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source. For the clinical studies, the TG-43-based calculations show a D-90 overestimation of more than 4% compared to the more realistic MC methods due to ISA and tissue composition. The results of this work generally show few discrepancies with the post-implant CT-based dosimetry studies with respect to the D-90 absorbed dose metric parameter. These discrepancies are mainly Type B uncertainties due to the different I-125 source models and MC codes. Conclusions The implementation of MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images have no dosimetric effect on the I-125 prostate MC absorbed dose calculation in post-implant CT-based phantoms.

Abstract: Purpose This work aims to simulate clustered DNA damage from ionizing radiation and estimate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for radionuclide (rBT)- and electronic (eBT)-based surface brachytherapy through a hybrid Monte Carlo (MC) approach, using realistic models of the sources and applicators. Methods Damage from ionizing radiation has been studied using the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation algorithm using as input the primary electron fluence simulated using a state-of-the-art MC code, PENELOPE-2018. Two Ir-192 rBT applicators, Valencia and Leipzig, one Co-60 source with a Freiburg Flap applicator (reference source), and two eBT systems, Esteya and INTRABEAM, have been included in this study implementing full realizations of their geometries as disclosed by the manufacturer. The role played by filtration and tube kilovoltage has also been addressed. Results For rBT, an RBE value of about 1.01 has been found for the applicators and phantoms considered. In the case of eBT, RBE values for the Esteya system show an almost constant RBE value of about 1.06 for all depths and materials. For INTRABEAM, variations in the range of 1.12-1.06 are reported depending on phantom composition and depth. Modifications in the Esteya system, filtration, and tube kilovoltage give rise to variations in the same range. Conclusions Current clinical practice does not incorporate biological effects in surface brachytherapy. Therefore, the same absorbed dose is administered to the patients independently on the particularities of the rBT or eBT system considered. The almost constant RBE values reported for rBT support that assumption regardless of the details of the patient geometry, the presence of a flattening filter in the applicator design, or even significant modifications in the photon energy spectra above 300 keV. That is not the case for eBT, where a clear dependence on the eBT system and the characteristics of the patient geometry are reported. A complete study specific for each eBT system, including detailed applicator characteristics (size, shape, filtering, among others) and common anatomical locations, should be performed before adopting an existing RBE value.

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.