Abstract: PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate whether the delivered dose to the skin surface and at the prescription depth when using a Freiburg flap applicator is in agreement with the one predicted by the treatment planning system (TPS) using the TG-43 dose-calculation formalism. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and radiochromic film measurements have been performed to obtain dose distributions with the source located at the center of one of the spheres and between two spheres. Primary and scatter dose contributions were evaluated to understand the role played by the scatter component. A standard treatment plan was generated using MC- and TG-43-based TPS applying the superposition principle. RESULTS: The MC model has been validated by performing additional simulations in the same conditions but transforming air and Freiburg flap materials into water to match TG-43 parameters. Both dose distributions differ less than 1%. Scatter defect compared with TG-43 data is up to 15% when the source is located at the center of the sphere and up to 25% when the source is between two spheres. Maximum deviations between TPS- and MC-based distributions are of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The deviations in the TG-43-based dose distributions for a standard treatment plan with respect to the MC dose distribution calculated taking into account the composition and shape of the applicator and the surrounding air are lower than 5%. Therefore, this study supports the validity of the TPS used in clinical practice. (C) 2012 American Brachytherapy Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Abstract: BackgroundNon-melanoma skin cancer is one of the most common types of cancer and one of the main approaches is brachytherapy. For small lesions, the treatment of this cancer with brachytherapy can be done with two commercial applicators, one of these is the Large Field Valencia Applicators (LFVA).PurposeThe aim of this study is to test the capabilities of the LFVA to use clinically 60Co sources instead of the 192Ir ones. This study was designed for the same dwell positions and weights for both sources.MethodsThe Penelope Monte Carlo code was used to evaluate dose distribution in a water phantom when a 60Co source is considered. The LFVA design and the optimized dwell weights reported for the case of 192Ir are maintained with the only exception of the dwell weight of the central position, that was increased. 2D dose distributions, field flatness, symmetry and the leakage dose distribution around the applicator were calculated.ResultsWhen comparing the dose distributions of both sources, field flatness and symmetry remain unchanged. The only evident difference is an increase of the penumbra regions for all depths when using the 60Co source. Regarding leakage, the maximum dose within the air volume surrounding the applicator is in the order of 20% of the prescription dose for the 60Co source, but it decreases to less than 5% at about 1 cm distance.ConclusionsFlatness and symmetry remains unaltered as compared with 192Ir sources, while an increase in leakage has been observed. This proves the feasibility of using the LFVA in a larger range of clinical applications.

Abstract: The introduction of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) in brachytherapy provides an opportunity for a more accurate dose calculation and opens the possibility for novel, innovative treatment modalities. The joint AAPM, ESTRO, and ABG Task Group 186 (TG-186) report provided guidance to early adopters. However, the commissioning aspect of these algorithms was described only in general terms with no quantitative goals. This report, from the Working Group on Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms in Brachytherapy, introduced a field-tested approach to MBDCA commissioning. It is based on a set of well-characterized test cases for which reference Monte Carlo (MC) and vendor-specific MBDCA dose distributions are available in a Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine-Radiotherapy (DICOM-RT) format to the clinical users. The key elements of the TG-186 commissioning workflow are now described in detail, and quantitative goals are provided. This approach leverages the well-known Brachytherapy Source Registry jointly managed by the AAPM and the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) Houston Quality Assurance Center (with associated links at ESTRO) to provide open access to test cases as well as step-by-step user guides. While the current report is limited to the two most widely commercially available MBDCAs and only for Ir-192-based afterloading brachytherapy at this time, this report establishes a general framework that can easily be extended to other brachytherapy MBDCAs and brachytherapy sources. The AAPM, ESTRO, ABG, and ABS recommend that clinical medical physicists implement the workflow presented in this report to validate both the basic and the advanced dose calculation features of their commercial MBDCAs. Recommendations are also given to vendors to integrate advanced analysis tools into their brachytherapy treatment planning system to facilitate extensive dose comparisons. The use of the test cases for research and educational purposes is further encouraged.