|
|
Ma, Y. Z., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Tedgren, A. C., Granero, D., Haworth, A., et al. (2017). A generic TG-186 shielded applicator for commissioning model-based dose calculation algorithms for high-dose-rate Ir-192 brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 44(11), 5961–5976.
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.
|
|
|
|
Valdes-Cortez, C., Niatsetski, Y., Perez-Calatayud, J., Ballester, F., & Vijande, J. (2022). A Monte Carlo study of the relative biological effectiveness in surface brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 49, 5576–5588.
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.
|
|
|
|
Hueso-Gonzalez, F., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., & Siebert, F. A. (2015). A simple analytical method for heterogeneity corrections in low dose rate prostate brachytherapy. Phys. Med. Biol., 60(14), 5455–5469.
Abstract: In low energy brachytherapy, the presence of tissue heterogeneities contributes significantly to the discrepancies observed between treatment plan and delivered dose. In this work, we present a simplified analytical dose calculation algorithm for heterogeneous tissue. We compare it with Monte Carlo computations and assess its suitability for integration in clinical treatment planning systems. The algorithm, named as RayStretch, is based on the classic equivalent path length method and TG-43 reference data. Analytical and Monte Carlo dose calculations using Penelope2008 are compared for a benchmark case: a prostate patient with calcifications. The results show a remarkable agreement between simulation and algorithm, the latter having, in addition, a high calculation speed. The proposed analytical model is compatible with clinical real-time treatment planning systems based on TG-43 consensus datasets for improving dose calculation and treatment quality in heterogeneous tissue. Moreover, the algorithm is applicable for any type of heterogeneities.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Peppa, V., Thomson, R. M., Enger, S. A., Fonseca, G. P., Lee, C. N., Lucero, J. N. E., et al. (2023). A MC-based anthropomorphic test case for commissioning model-based dose calculation in interstitial breast 192-Ir HDR brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 50(7), 4675–4687.
Abstract: PurposeTo provide the first clinical test case for commissioning of Ir-192 brachytherapy model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) according to the AAPM TG-186 report workflow. Acquisition and Validation MethodsA computational patient phantom model was generated from a clinical multi-catheter Ir-192 HDR breast brachytherapy case. Regions of interest (ROIs) were contoured and digitized on the patient CT images and the model was written to a series of DICOM CT images using MATLAB. The model was imported into two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) currently incorporating an MBDCA. Identical treatment plans were prepared using a generic Ir-192 HDR source and the TG-43-based algorithm of each TPS. This was followed by dose to medium in medium calculations using the MBDCA option of each TPS. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation was performed in the model using three different codes and information parsed from the treatment plan exported in DICOM radiation therapy (RT) format. Results were found to agree within statistical uncertainty and the dataset with the lowest uncertainty was assigned as the reference MC dose distribution. Data Format and Usage NotesThe dataset is available online at ,. Files include the treatment plan for each TPS in DICOM RT format, reference MC dose data in RT Dose format, as well as a guide for database users and all files necessary to repeat the MC simulations. Potential ApplicationsThe dataset facilitates the commissioning of brachytherapy MBDCAs using TPS embedded tools and establishes a methodology for the development of future clinical test cases. It is also useful to non-MBDCA adopters for intercomparing MBDCAs and exploring their benefits and limitations, as well as to brachytherapy researchers in need of a dosimetric and/or a DICOM RT information parsing benchmark. Limitations include specificity in terms of radionuclide, source model, clinical scenario, and MBDCA version used for its preparation.
|
|
