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: Background and purpose: Brachytherapy treatment outcomes depend on the accuracy of the delivered dose distribution, which is proportional to the reference air-kerma rate (RAKR). Current societal recommendations require the medical physicist to compare the measured RAKR values to the manufacturer source calibration certificate. The purpose of this work was to report agreement observed in current clinical practice in the European Union. Materials and methods: A European survey was performed for high- and pulsed-dose-rate (HDR and PDR) highenergy sources (Ir-192 and Co-60), to quantify observed RAKR differences. Medical physicists at eighteen hospitals from eight European countries were contacted, providing 1,032 data points from 2001 to 2020. Results: Over the survey period, 77% of the Ir-192 measurements used a well chamber instead of the older Krieger phantom method. Mean differences with the manufacturer calibration certificate were 0.01% +/- 1.15% for Ir-192 and -0.1% +/- 1.3% for Co-60. Over 95% of RAKR measurements in the clinic were within 3% of the manufacturer calibration certificate. Conclusions: This study showed that the agreement level was generally better than that reflected in prior societal recommendations positing 5%. Future recommendations on high-energy HDR and PDR source calibrations in the clinic may consider tightened agreements levels.

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.