Abstract: In the absence of procedures for evaluating the design of brachytherapy (BT) facilities for radiation protection purposes, the methodology used for external beam radiotherapy facilities is often adapted. The purpose of this study is to adapt the NCRP 151 methodology for estimating the air-kerma rate at the door in BT facilities. Such methodology was checked against Monte Carlo (MC) techniques using the code Geant4. Five different facility designs were studied for Ir-192 and Co-60 HDR applications to account for several different bunker layouts. For the estimation of the lead thickness needed at the door, the use of transmission data for the real spectra at the door instead of the ones emitted by Ir-192 and Co-60 will reduce the lead thickness by a factor of five for Ir-192 and ten for Co-60. This will significantly lighten the door and hence simplify construction and operating requirements for all bunkers. The adaptation proposed in this study to estimate the air-kerma rate at the door depends on the complexity of the maze: it provides good results for bunkers with a maze (i.e. similar to those used for linacs for which the NCRP 151 methodology was developed) but fails for less conventional designs. For those facilities, a specific Monte Carlo study is in order for reasons of safety and cost-effectiveness.

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.

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.