Abstract: PurposeA joint working group was created by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) with the charge, among others, to develop a set of well-defined test case plans and perform calculations and comparisons with model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). Its main goal is to facilitate a smooth transition from the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) dose calculation formalism, widely being used in clinical practice for brachytherapy, to the one proposed by Task Group No. 186 (TG-186) for MBDCAs. To do so, in this work a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) Ir-192 shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked. MethodsA generic HDR Ir-192 shielded applicator was designed based on three commercially available gynecological applicators as well as a virtual cubic water phantom that can be imported into any DICOM-RT compatible treatment planning system (TPS). The absorbed dose distribution around the applicator with the TG-186 Ir-192 source located at one dwell position at its center was computed using two commercial TPSs incorporating MBDCAs (Oncentra((R)) Brachy with Advanced Collapsed-cone Engine, ACE, and BrachyVision ACUROS) and state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, egs_brachy, Geant4, MCNP6, and Penelope2008. TPS-based volumetric dose distributions for the previously reported source centered in water and source displaced test cases, and the new source centered in applicator test case, were analyzed here using the MCNP6 dose distribution as a reference. Volumetric dose comparisons of TPS results against results for the other MC codes were also performed. Distributions of local and global dose difference ratios are reported. ResultsThe local dose differences among MC codes are comparable to the statistical uncertainties of the reference datasets for the source centered in water and source displaced test cases and for the clinically relevant part of the unshielded volume in the source centered in applicator case. Larger local differences appear in the shielded volume or at large distances. Considering clinically relevant regions, global dose differences are smaller than the local ones. The most disadvantageous case for the MBDCAs is the one including the shielded applicator. In this case, ACUROS agrees with MC within [-4.2%, +4.2%] for the majority of voxels (95%) while presenting dose differences within [-0.12%, +0.12%] of the dose at a clinically relevant reference point. For ACE, 95% of the total volume presents differences with respect to MC in the range [-1.7%, +0.4%] of the dose at the reference point. ConclusionsThe combination of the generic source and generic shielded applicator, together with the previously developed test cases and reference datasets (available in the Brachytherapy Source Registry), lay a solid foundation in supporting uniform commissioning procedures and direct comparisons among treatment planning systems for HDR Ir-192 brachytherapy.

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.

Abstract: Purpose. To estimate Type B uncertainties in absorbed-dose calculations arising from the different implementations in current state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes of low-energy photon cross-sections (<200 keV). Methods. MC simulations are carried out using three codes widely used in the low-energy domain: PENELOPE-2018, EGSnrc, and MCNP. Three dosimetry-relevant quantities are considered: mass energy-absorption coefficients for water, air, graphite, and their respective ratios; absorbed dose; and photon-fluence spectra. The absorbed dose and the photon-fluence spectra are scored in a spherical water phantom of 15 cm radius. Benchmark simulations using similar cross-sections have been performed. The differences observed between these quantities when different cross-sections are considered are taken to be a good estimator for the corresponding Type B uncertainties. Results. A conservative Type B uncertainty for the absorbed dose (k = 2) of 1.2%-1.7% (<50 keV), 0.6%-1.2% (50-100 keV), and 0.3% (100-200 keV) is estimated. The photon-fluence spectrum does not present clinically relevant differences that merit considering additional Type B uncertainties except for energies below 25 keV, where a Type B uncertainty of 0.5% is obtained. Below 30 keV, mass energy-absorption coefficients show Type B uncertainties (k = 2) of about 1.5% (water and air), and 2% (graphite), diminishing in all materials for larger energies and reaching values about 1% (40-50 keV) and 0.5% (50-75 keV). With respect to their ratios, the only significant Type B uncertainties are observed in the case of the water-to-graphite ratio for energies below 30 keV, being about 0.7% (k = 2). Conclusions. In contrast with the intermediate (about 500 keV) or high (about 1 MeV) energy domains, Type B uncertainties due to the different cross-sections implementation cannot be considered subdominant with respect to Type A uncertainties or even to other sources of Type B uncertainties (tally volume averaging, manufacturing tolerances, etc). Therefore, the values reported here should be accommodated within the uncertainty budget in low-energy photon dosimetry studies.