Abstract: Purpose Monte Carlo (MC) simulation studies, aimed at evaluating the magnitude of tissue heterogeneity in I-125 prostate permanent seed implant brachytherapy (BT), customarily use clinical post-implant CT images to generate a virtual representation of a realistic patient model (virtual patient model). Metallic artifact reduction (MAR) techniques and tissue assignment schemes (TAS) are implemented on the post-implant CT images to mollify metallic artifacts due to BT seeds and to assign tissue types to the voxels corresponding to the bright seed spots and streaking artifacts, respectively. The objective of this study is to assess the combined influence of MAR and TAS on MC absorbed dose calculations in post-implant CT-based phantoms. The virtual patient models used for I-125 prostate implant MC absorbed dose calculations in this study are derived from the CT images of an external radiotherapy prostate patient without BT seeds and prostatic calcifications, thus averting the need to implement MAR and TAS. Methods The geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source is validated by comparing the MC calculated results of the TG-43 parameters for the line source approximation with the TG-43U1S2 consensus data. Four MC absorbed dose calculations are performed in two virtual patient models using the egs_brachy MC code: (1) TG-43-based D-w,w-TG(43), (2) D-w,D-w-MBDC that accounts for interseed scattering and attenuation (ISA), (3) D-m,D-m that examines ISA and tissue heterogeneity by scoring absorbed dose in tissue, and (4) D-w,D-m that unlike D-m,D-m scores absorbed dose in water. The MC absorbed doses (1) and (2) are simulated in a TG-43 patient phantom derived by assigning the densities of every voxel to 1.00 g cm(-3) (water), whereas MC absorbed doses (3) and (4) are scored in the TG-186 patient phantom generated by mapping the mass density of each voxel to tissue according to a CT calibration curve. The MC absorbed doses calculated in this study are compared with VariSeed v8.0 calculated absorbed doses. To evaluate the dosimetric effect of MAR and TAS, the MC absorbed doses of this work (independent of MAR and TAS) are compared to the MC absorbed doses of different I-125 source models from previous studies that were calculated with different MC codes using post-implant CT-based phantoms generated by implementing MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images. Results The very good agreement of TG-43 parameters of this study and the published consensus data within 3% validates the geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source. For the clinical studies, the TG-43-based calculations show a D-90 overestimation of more than 4% compared to the more realistic MC methods due to ISA and tissue composition. The results of this work generally show few discrepancies with the post-implant CT-based dosimetry studies with respect to the D-90 absorbed dose metric parameter. These discrepancies are mainly Type B uncertainties due to the different I-125 source models and MC codes. Conclusions The implementation of MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images have no dosimetric effect on the I-125 prostate MC absorbed dose calculation in post-implant CT-based phantoms.

Abstract: Purpose: In the present work, the authors compare geometrical and Monte Carlo projectors in detail. The geometrical projectors considered were the conventional geometrical Siddon ray-tracer (S-RT) and the orthogonal distance-based ray-tracer (OD-RT), based on computing the orthogonal distance from the center of image voxel to the line-of-response. A comparison of these geometrical projectors was performed using different point spread function (PSF) models. The Monte Carlo-based method under consideration involves an extensive model of the system response matrix based on Monte Carlo simulations and is computed off-line and stored on disk. Methods: Comparisons were performed using simulated and experimental data of the commercial small animal PET scanner rPET. Results: The results demonstrate that the orthogonal distance-based ray-tracer and Siddon ray-tracer using PSF image-space convolutions yield better images in terms of contrast and spatial resolution than those obtained after using the conventional method and the multiray-based S-RT. Furthermore, the Monte Carlo-based method yields slight improvements in terms of contrast and spatial resolution with respect to these geometrical projectors. Conclusions: The orthogonal distance-based ray-tracer and Siddon ray-tracer using PSF image-space convolutions represent satisfactory alternatives to factorizing the system matrix or to the conventional on-the-fly ray-tracing methods for list-mode reconstruction, where an extensive modeling based on Monte Carlo simulations is unfeasible.

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.