Abstract: Esteya (R) (Elekta Brachytherapy, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) is an electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system based on a 69.5 kVp x-ray source and a set of collimators of 1 to 3 cm in diameter, used for treating non-melanoma skin cancer lesions. This study aims to estimate room shielding requirements for this unit. The non-primary (scattered and leakage) ambient dose equivalent rates were measured with a Berthold LB-133 monitor (Berthold Technologies, Bad Wildbad, Germany). The latter ranges from 17 mSv h(-1) at 0.25 m distance from the x-ray source to 0.1 mSv h(-1) at 2.5 m. The necessary room shielding was then estimated following US and some European guidelines. The room shielding for all barriers considered was below 2 mmPb. The dose to a companion who, exceptionally, would stay with the patient during all treatment was estimated to be below 1 mSv if a leaded apron is used. In conclusion, Esteya shielding requirements are minimal.

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: 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.