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: Treatment of small skin lesions using HDR brachytherapy applicators is a widely used technique. The shielded applicators currently available in clinical practice are based on a tungsten-alloy cup that collimates the source-emitted radiation into a small region, hence protecting nearby tissues. The goal of this manuscript is to evaluate the correction factors required for dose measurements with a plane-parallel ionization chamber typically used in clinical brachytherapy for the 'Valencia' and 'large field Valencia' shielded applicators. Monte Carlo simulations have been performed using the PENELOPE-2014 system to determine the absorbed dose deposited in a water phantom and in the chamber active volume with a Type A uncertainty of the order of 0.1%. The average energies of the photon spectra arriving at the surface of the water phantom differ by approximately 10%, being 384 keV for the 'Valencia' and 343 keV for the 'large field Valencia'. The ionization chamber correction factors have been obtained for both applicators using three methods, their values depending on the applicator being considered. Using a depth-independent global chamber perturbation correction factor and no shift of the effective point of measurement yields depth-dose differences of up to 1% for the 'Valencia' applicator. Calculations using a depth-dependent global perturbation factor, or a shift of the effective point of measurement combined with a constant partial perturbation factor, result in differences of about 0.1% for both applicators. The results emphasize the relevance of carrying out detailed Monte Carlo studies for each shielded brachytherapy applicator and ionization chamber.

Abstract: Ring dosimeters for personal dosimetry are calibrated in accredited laboratories following ISO 4037-3 guidelines. The simultaneous irradiation of multiple dosimeters would save time, but has to be carefully studied, since the scattering conditions could change and influence the absorbed dose in nearby dosimeters. Monte Carlo simulations using PENELOPE-2014 were performed to explore the need to increase the uncertainty of H-p (0.07) in the simultaneous irradiation of three and five DXT-RAD 707H-2 (Thermo Scientific) ring dosimeters with beam qualities: N-30, N-80 and N-300. Results show that the absorbed dose in each dosimeter is compatible with each of the others and with the reference simulation (a single dosimeter), with a coverage probability of 95% (k = 2). Comparison with experimental data yielded consistent results with the same coverage probability. Therefore, five ring dosimeters can be simultaneously irradiated with beam qualities ranging, at least, between N-30 and N-300 with a negligible impact on the uncertainty of H-p (0.07).