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.

Abstract: PurposeA joint Working Group of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) was created to aid in the transition from the AAPM TG-43 dose calculation formalism, the current standard, to model-based dose calculations. This work establishes the first test cases for low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy using model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs).Acquisition and Validation MethodsFive test cases are developed: (1) a single model 6711 125I brachytherapy seed in water, 13 seeds (2) individually and (3) in combination in water, (4) the full Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) 16-mm eye plaque in water, and (5) the full plaque in a realistic eye phantom. Calculations are done with four Monte Carlo (MC) codes and a research version of a commercial treatment planning system (TPS). For all test cases, local agreement of MC codes was within & SIM;2.5% and global agreement was & SIM;2% (4% for test case 5). MC agreement was within expected uncertainties. Local agreement of TPS with MC was within 5% for test case 1 and & SIM;20% for test cases 4 and 5, and global agreement was within 0.4% for test case 1 and 10% for test cases 4 and 5.Data Format and Usage NotesDose distributions for each set of MC and TPS calculations are available online () along with input files and all other information necessary to repeat the calculations.Potential ApplicationsThese data can be used to support commissioning of MBDCAs for low-energy brachytherapy as recommended by TGs 186 and 221 and AAPM Report 372. This work additionally lays out a sample framework for the development of test cases that can be extended to other applications beyond eye plaque brachytherapy.