Abstract: Purpose: A surface electronic brachytherapy (EBT) device is in fact an x-ray source collimated with specific applicators. Low-energy (<100 kVp) x-ray beam dosimetry faces several challenges that need to be addressed. A number of calibration protocols have been published for x-ray beam dosimetry. The media in which measurements are performed are the fundamental difference between them. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface dose rate of a low-energy x-ray source with small field applicators using different calibration standards and different small-volume ionization chambers, comparing the values and uncertainties of each methodology. Methods: The surface dose rate of the EBT unit Esteya (Elekta Brachytherapy, The Netherlands), a 69.5 kVp x-ray source with applicators of 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mm diameter, was evaluated using the AAPM TG-61 (based on air kerma) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) TRS-398 (based on absorbed dose to water) dosimetry protocols for low-energy photon beams. A plane parallel T34013 ionization chamber (PTW Freiburg, Germany) calibrated in terms of both absorbed dose to water and air kerma was used to compare the two dosimetry protocols. Another PTW chamber of the same model was used to evaluate the reproducibility between these chambers. Measurements were also performed with two different Exradin A20 (Standard Imaging, Inc., Middleton, WI) chambers calibrated in terms of air kerma. Results: Differences between surface dose rates measured in air and in water using the T34013 chamber range from 1.6% to 3.3%. No field size dependence has been observed. Differences are below 3.7% when measurements with the A20 and the T34013 chambers calibrated in air are compared. Estimated uncertainty (with coverage factor k = 1) for the T34013 chamber calibrated in water is 2.2%-2.4%, whereas it increases to 2.5% and 2.7% for the A20 and T34013 chambers calibrated in air, respectively. The output factors, measured with the PTW chambers, differ by less than 1.1% for any applicator size when compared to the output factors that were measured with the A20 chamber. Conclusions: Measurements using both dosimetric protocols are consistent, once the overall uncertainties are considered. There is also consistency between measurements performed with both chambers calibrated in air. Both the T34013 and A20 chambers have negligible stem effect. Any x-ray surface brachytherapy system, including Esteya, can be characterized using either one of these calibration protocols and ionization chambers. Having less correction factors, lower uncertainty, and based on measurements, performed in closer to clinical conditions, the TRS-398 protocol seems to be the preferred option.

Abstract: Purpose: Recently, the manufacturer of the HDR Ir-192 mHDR-v2 brachytherapy source reported small design changes (referred to herein as mHDR-v2r) that are within the manufacturing tolerances but may alter the existing dosimetric data for this source. This study aimed to (1) check whether these changes affect the existing dosimetric data published for this source; (2) obtain new dosimetric data in close proximity to the source, including the contributions from 192Ir electrons and considering the absence of electronic equilibrium; and (3) obtain scatter dose components for collapsed cone treatment planning system implementation. Methods: Three different Monte Carlo (MC) radiation transport codes were used: MCNP5, PENELOPE2008, and GEANT4. The source was centrally positioned in a 40 cm radius water phantom. Absorbed dose and collision kerma were obtained using 0.1 mm (0.5 mm) thick voxels to provide high-resolution dosimetry near (far from) the source. Dose-rate distributions obtained with the three MC codes were compared. Results: Simulations of mHDR-v2 and mHDR-v2r designs performed with three radiation transport codes showed agreement typically within 0.2% for r >= 0.25 cm. Dosimetric contributions from source electrons were significant for r<0.25 cm. The dose-rate constant and radial dose function were similar to those from previous MC studies of the mHDR-v2 design. The 2D anisotropy function also coincided with that of the mHDR-v2 design for r >= 0.25 cm. Detailed results of dose distributions and scatter components are presented for the modified source design. Conclusions: Comparison of these results to prior MC studies showed agreement typically within 0.5% for r >= 0.25 cm. If dosimetric data for r<0.25 cm are not needed, dosimetric results from the prior MC studies will be adequate. c 2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

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.