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: The aim of this work is to analyse the scattered radiation produced by the mobile accelerator Mobetron 1000. To do so, detailed Monte Carlo simulations using two different codes, Penelope2008 and Geant4, were performed. Measurements were also done. To quantify the attenuation due to the internal structures, present in the accelerator head, on the scattered radiation produced, some of the main structural shielding in the Mobetron 1000 has been incorporated into the geometry simulation. Results are compared with measurements. Some discrepancies between the calculated and measured dose values were found. These differences can be traced back to the importance of the radiation component due to low energy scattered electrons. This encouraged us to perform additional calculations to separate the role played by this component. Ambient dose equivalent, H*(10), outside of the operating room (OR) has been evaluated using Geant4. H*(10) has been measured inside and outside the OR, being its values compatible with those reported in the literature once the low energy electron component is removed. With respect to the role played by neutrons, estimations of neutron H*(10) using Geant4 together with H*(10) measurements has been performed for the case of the 12 MeV electron beam. The values obtained agree with the experimental values existing in the literature, being much smaller than those registered in conventional accelerators. This study is a useful tool for the clinical user to investigate the radiation protection issues arising with the use of these accelerators in ORs without structural shielding. These results will also enable to better fix the maximum number of treatments that could be performed while insuring adequate radiological protection of workers and public in the hospital.