Abstract: The AAPM TG-43 brachytherapy dosimetry formalism, introduced in 1995, has become a standard for brachytherapy dosimetry worldwide; it implicitly assumes that charged-particle equilibrium (CPE) exists for the determination of absorbed dose to water at different locations, except in the vicinity of the source capsule. Subsequent dosimetry developments, based on Monte Carlo calculations or analytical solutions of transport equations, do not rely on the CPE assumption and determine directly the dose to different tissues. At the time of relating dose to tissue and dose to water, or vice versa, it is usually assumed that the photon fluence in water and in tissues are practically identical, so that the absorbed dose in the two media can be related by their ratio of mass energy-absorption coefficients. In this work, an efficient way to correlate absorbed dose to water and absorbed dose to tissue in brachytherapy calculations at clinically relevant distances for low-energy photon emitting seeds is proposed. A correction is introduced that is based on the ratio of the water-to-tissue photon energy-fluences. State-of-the art Monte Carlo calculations are used to score photon fluence differential in energy in water and in various human tissues (muscle, adipose and bone), which in all cases include a realistic modelling of low-energy brachytherapy sources in order to benchmark the formalism proposed. The energy-fluence based corrections given in this work are able to correlate absorbed dose to tissue and absorbed dose to water with an accuracy better than 0.5% in the most critical cases (e.g. bone tissue).

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.

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.