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: The beam quality correction factork(Q)for megavoltage photon beams has been calculated for eight PTW (Freiburg, Germany) ionization chambers (Farmer chambers PTW30010, PTW30011, PTW30012, and PTW30013, Semiflex 3D chambers PTW31021, PTW31010, and PTW31013, and the PinPoint 3D chamber PTW31016). Simulations performed on the widely used NE-2571 ionization chamber have been used to benchmark the results. The Monte Carlo code PENELOPE/penEasy was used to calculate the absorbed dose to a point in water and the absorbed dose to the active air volume of the chambers for photon beams in the range 4 to 24 MV. Of the nine ionization chambers analysed, only five are included in the current version of the International Code of Practice for dosimetry based on standards of absorbed dose to water (IAEA TRS 398). The values reported in this work agree with those in the literature within the uncertainty estimates and are to be included in the average values of the data obtained by different working groups for the forthcoming update of TRS 398.

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.