Abstract: Simple Summary There are no brachytherapy treatment planning systems (TPS) exclusively for the treatment of cervical tumours, so general-purpose TPSs are used. However, these treatments have some particular features concerning the treatment of other pathologies, especially in the case of exclusive use of MRI as an imaging modality and the presence of gynaecological applicators in combination with an interstitial part. That is why it is essential to review the latest versions of commercial TPSs to find the potential features to improve with the help of a group of experimented medical physicists and radiation oncologists. Furthermore, after reviewing the recent literature for advances applicable to cervical brachytherapy and through his own clinical experience, possible improvements are proposed to software providers for the development of new tools. Intracavitary brachytherapy (BT, Interventional Radiotherapy, IRT), plays an essential role in the curative intent of locally advanced cervical cancer, for which the conventional approach involves external beam radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy followed by BT. This work aims to review the different methodologies used by commercially available treatment planning systems (TPSs) in exclusive magnetic resonance imaging-based (MRI) cervix BT with interstitial component treatments. Practical aspects and improvements to be implemented into the TPSs are discussed. This review is based on the clinical expertise of a group of radiation oncologists and medical physicists and on interactive demos provided by the software manufacturers. The TPS versions considered include all the new tools currently in development for future commercial releases. The specialists from the supplier companies were asked to propose solutions to some of the challenges often encountered in a clinical environment through a questionnaire. The results include not only such answers but also comments by the authors that, in their opinion, could help solve the challenges covered in these questions. This study summarizes the possibilities offered nowadays by commercial TPSs, highlighting the absence of some useful tools that would notably improve the planning of MR-based interstitial component cervix brachytherapy.

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.

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.