Abstract: Methods: For Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103, the authors considered from two to five published spectra. Spherical sources approximating common brachytherapy sources were assessed. Kerma and dose results from GEANT4, MCNP5, and PENELOPE-2008 were compared for water and air. The dosimetric influence of Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103 spectral choice was determined. Results: For the spectra considered, there were no statistically significant differences between kerma or dose results based on Monte Carlo code choice when using the same spectrum. Water-kerma differences of about 2%, 2%, and 0.7% were observed due to spectrum choice for Ir-192, I-125, and Pd-103, respectively (independent of radial distance), when accounting for photon yield per Bq. Similar differences were observed for air-kerma rate. However, their ratio (as used in the dose-rate constant) did not significantly change when the various photon spectra were selected because the differences compensated each other when dividing dose rate by air-kerma strength. Conclusions: Given the standardization of radionuclide data available from the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) and the rigorous infrastructure for performing and maintaining the data set evaluations, NNDC spectra are suggested for brachytherapy simulations in medical physics applications.

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: 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.