|
|
Candela-Juan, C., Vijande, J., Garcia-Martinez, T., Niatsetski, Y., Nauta, G., Schuurman, J., et al. (2015). Comparison and uncertainty evaluation of different calibration protocols and ionization chambers for low-energy surface brachytherapy dosimetry. Med. Phys., 42(8), 4954–4964.
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.
|
|
|
|
Candela-Juan, C., Niatsetski, Y., van der Laarse, R., Granero, D., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., et al. (2016). Design and characterization of a new high-dose-rate brachytherapy Valencia applicator for larger skin lesions. Med. Phys., 43(4), 1639–1648.
Abstract: Purpose: The aims of this study were (i) to design a new high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy applicator for treating surface lesions with planning target volumes larger than 3 cm in diameter and up to 5 cm in size, using the microSelectron-HDR or Flexitron afterloader (Elekta Brachytherapy) with a Ir-192 source; (ii) to calculate by means of the Monte Carlo (MC) method the dose distribution for the new applicator when it is placed against a water phantom; and (iii) to validate experimentally the dose distributions in water. Methods: The PENELOPE2008 MC code was used to optimize dwell positions and dwell times. Next, the dose distribution in a water phantom and the leakage dose distribution around the applicator were calculated. Finally, MC data were validated experimentally for a 192Ir mHDR-v2 source by measuring (i) dose distributions with radiochromic EBT3 films (ISP); (ii) percentage depth-dose (PDD) curve with the parallel-plate ionization chamber Advanced Markus (PTW); and (iii) absolute dose rate with EBT3 films and the PinPoint T31016 (PTW) ionization chamber. Results: The new applicator is made of tungsten alloy (Densimet) and consists of a set of interchangeable collimators. Three catheters are used to allocate the source at prefixed dwell positions with preset weights to produce a homogenous dose distribution at the typical prescription depth of 3 mm in water. The same plan is used for all available collimators. PDD, absolute dose rate per unit of air kerma strength, and off-axis profiles in a cylindrical water phantom are reported. These data can be used for treatment planning. Leakage around the applicator was also scored. The dose distributions, PDD, and absolute dose rate calculated agree within experimental uncertainties with the doses measured: differences of MC data with chamber measurements are up to 0.8% and with radiochromic films are up to 3.5%. Conclusions: The new applicator and the dosimetric data provided here will be a valuable tool in clinical practice, making treatment of large skin lesions simpler, faster, and safer. Also the dose to surrounding healthy tissues is minimal.
|
|
|
|
Granero, D., Candela-Juan, C., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., Jacob, D., et al. (2016). Technical Note: Dosimetry of Leipzig and Valencia applicators without the plastic cap. Med. Phys., 43(5), 2087–4pp.
Abstract: Purpose: High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy for treatment of small skin lesions using the Leipzig and Valencia applicators is a widely used technique. These applicators are equipped with an attachable plastic cap to be placed during fraction delivery to ensure electronic equilibrium and to prevent secondary electrons from reaching the skin surface. The purpose of this study is to report on the dosimetric impact of the cap being absent during HDR fraction delivery, which has not been explored previously in the literature. Methods: GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations (version 10.0) have been performed for the Leipzig and Valencia applicators with and without the plastic cap. In order to validate the Monte Carlo simulations, experimental measurements using radiochromic films have been done. Results: Dose absorbed within 1 mm of the skin surface increases by a factor of 1500% for the Leipzig applicators and of 180% for the Valencia applicators. Deeper than 1 mm, the overdosage flattens up to a 10% increase. Conclusions: Differences of treating with or without the plastic cap are significant. Users must check always that the plastic cap is in place before any treatment in order to avoid overdosage of the skin. Prior to skin HDR fraction delivery, the timeout checklist should include verification of the cap placement. (C) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
|
|
|
|
Ma, Y. Z., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., Tedgren, A. C., Granero, D., Haworth, A., et al. (2017). A generic TG-186 shielded applicator for commissioning model-based dose calculation algorithms for high-dose-rate Ir-192 brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 44(11), 5961–5976.
Abstract: PurposeA joint working group was created by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) with the charge, among others, to develop a set of well-defined test case plans and perform calculations and comparisons with model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). Its main goal is to facilitate a smooth transition from the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) dose calculation formalism, widely being used in clinical practice for brachytherapy, to the one proposed by Task Group No. 186 (TG-186) for MBDCAs. To do so, in this work a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) Ir-192 shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked. MethodsA generic HDR Ir-192 shielded applicator was designed based on three commercially available gynecological applicators as well as a virtual cubic water phantom that can be imported into any DICOM-RT compatible treatment planning system (TPS). The absorbed dose distribution around the applicator with the TG-186 Ir-192 source located at one dwell position at its center was computed using two commercial TPSs incorporating MBDCAs (Oncentra((R)) Brachy with Advanced Collapsed-cone Engine, ACE, and BrachyVision ACUROS) and state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, egs_brachy, Geant4, MCNP6, and Penelope2008. TPS-based volumetric dose distributions for the previously reported source centered in water and source displaced test cases, and the new source centered in applicator test case, were analyzed here using the MCNP6 dose distribution as a reference. Volumetric dose comparisons of TPS results against results for the other MC codes were also performed. Distributions of local and global dose difference ratios are reported. ResultsThe local dose differences among MC codes are comparable to the statistical uncertainties of the reference datasets for the source centered in water and source displaced test cases and for the clinically relevant part of the unshielded volume in the source centered in applicator case. Larger local differences appear in the shielded volume or at large distances. Considering clinically relevant regions, global dose differences are smaller than the local ones. The most disadvantageous case for the MBDCAs is the one including the shielded applicator. In this case, ACUROS agrees with MC within [-4.2%, +4.2%] for the majority of voxels (95%) while presenting dose differences within [-0.12%, +0.12%] of the dose at a clinically relevant reference point. For ACE, 95% of the total volume presents differences with respect to MC in the range [-1.7%, +0.4%] of the dose at the reference point. ConclusionsThe combination of the generic source and generic shielded applicator, together with the previously developed test cases and reference datasets (available in the Brachytherapy Source Registry), lay a solid foundation in supporting uniform commissioning procedures and direct comparisons among treatment planning systems for HDR Ir-192 brachytherapy.
|
|
|
|
Valdes-Cortez, C., Niatsetski, Y., Perez-Calatayud, J., Ballester, F., & Vijande, J. (2022). A Monte Carlo study of the relative biological effectiveness in surface brachytherapy. Med. Phys., 49, 5576–5588.
Abstract: Purpose This work aims to simulate clustered DNA damage from ionizing radiation and estimate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for radionuclide (rBT)- and electronic (eBT)-based surface brachytherapy through a hybrid Monte Carlo (MC) approach, using realistic models of the sources and applicators. Methods Damage from ionizing radiation has been studied using the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation algorithm using as input the primary electron fluence simulated using a state-of-the-art MC code, PENELOPE-2018. Two Ir-192 rBT applicators, Valencia and Leipzig, one Co-60 source with a Freiburg Flap applicator (reference source), and two eBT systems, Esteya and INTRABEAM, have been included in this study implementing full realizations of their geometries as disclosed by the manufacturer. The role played by filtration and tube kilovoltage has also been addressed. Results For rBT, an RBE value of about 1.01 has been found for the applicators and phantoms considered. In the case of eBT, RBE values for the Esteya system show an almost constant RBE value of about 1.06 for all depths and materials. For INTRABEAM, variations in the range of 1.12-1.06 are reported depending on phantom composition and depth. Modifications in the Esteya system, filtration, and tube kilovoltage give rise to variations in the same range. Conclusions Current clinical practice does not incorporate biological effects in surface brachytherapy. Therefore, the same absorbed dose is administered to the patients independently on the particularities of the rBT or eBT system considered. The almost constant RBE values reported for rBT support that assumption regardless of the details of the patient geometry, the presence of a flattening filter in the applicator design, or even significant modifications in the photon energy spectra above 300 keV. That is not the case for eBT, where a clear dependence on the eBT system and the characteristics of the patient geometry are reported. A complete study specific for each eBT system, including detailed applicator characteristics (size, shape, filtering, among others) and common anatomical locations, should be performed before adopting an existing RBE value.
|
|
