Abstract: Methods: The authors have assumed a theoretical Tm-170 cylindrical source encapsulated with stainless steel and typical dimensions taken from the currently available HDR Ir-192 brachytherapy sources. The dose-rate distribution was calculated for this source using the GEANT4 Monte Carlo (MC) code considering both photon and electron Tm-170 spectra. The AAPM TG-43 U1 brachytherapy dosimetry parameters were derived. To study general properties of Tm-170 encapsulated sources, spherical sources encapsulated with stainless steel and platinum were also studied. Moreover, the influence of small variations in the active core and capsule dimensions on the dosimetric characteristics was assessed. Treatment times required for a Tm-170 source were compared to those for Ir-192 and Yb-169 for the same contained activity. Results: Due to the energetic beta spectrum and the large electron yield, the bremsstrahlung contribution to the dose was of the same order of magnitude as from the emitted gammas and characteristic x rays. Moreover, the electron spectrum contribution to the dose was significant up to 4 mm from the source center compared to the photon contribution. The dose-rate constant Lambda of the cylindrical source was 1.23 cGy h(-1) U-1. The behavior of the radial dose function showed promise for applications in brachytherapy. Due to the electron spectrum, the anisotropy was large for r < 6 mm. Variations in manufacturing tolerances did not significantly influence the final dosimetry data when expressed in cGy h(-1) U-1. For typical capsule dimensions, maximum reference dose rates of about 0.2, 10, and 2 Gy min(-1) would then be obtained for Tm-170, Ir-192, and Yb-169, respectively, resulting in treatment times greater than those for HDR Ir-192 brachytherapy. Conclusions: The dosimetric characteristics of source designs exploiting the low photon energy of Tm-170 were studied for potential application in HDR-brachytherapy. Dose-rate distributions were obtained for cylindrical and simplified spherical Tm-170 source designs (stainless steel and platinum capsule materials) using MC calculations. Despite the high activity of Tm-170, calculated treatment times were much longer than for Ir-192.

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: Purpose: In skin high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, sources are located outside, in contact with, or implanted at some depth below the skin surface. Most treatment planning systems use the TG-43 formalism, which is based on single-source dose superposition within an infinite water medium without accounting for the true geometry in which conditions for scattered radiation are altered by the presence of air. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric limitations of the TG-43 formalism in HDR skin brachytherapy and the potential clinical impact. Methods: Dose rate distributions of typical configurations used in skin brachytherapy were obtained: a 5 cm x 5 cm superficial mould; a source inside a catheter located at the skin surface with and without backscatter bolus; and a typical interstitial implant consisting of an HDR source in a catheter located at a depth of 0.5 cm. Commercially available HDR Co-60 and Ir-192 sources and a hypothetical Yb-169 source were considered. The Geant4Monte Carlo radiation transport code was used to estimate dose rate distributions for the configurations considered. These results were then compared to those obtained with the TG-43 dose calculation formalism. In particular, the influence of adding bolus material over the implant was studied. Results: For a 5 cm x 5 cm Ir-192 superficial mould and 0.5 cm prescription depth, dose differences in comparison to the TG-43 method were about -3%. When the source was positioned at the skin surface, dose differences were smaller than -1% for Co-60 and Ir-192, yet -3% for Yb-169. For the interstitial implant, dose differences at the skin surface were -7% for Co-60, -0.6% for Ir-192, and -2.5% for Yb-169. Conclusions: This study indicates the following: (i) for the superficial mould, no bolus is needed; (ii) when the source is in contact with the skin surface, no bolus is needed for either Co-60 and Ir-192. For lower energy radionuclides like Yb-169, bolus may be needed; and (iii) for the interstitial case, at least a 0.1 cm bolus is advised for Co-60 to avoid underdosing superficial target layers. For Ir-192 and Yb-169, no bolus is needed. For those cases where no bolus is needed, its use might be detrimental as the lack of radiation scatter may be beneficial to the patient, although the 2% tolerance for dose calculation accuracy recommended in the AAPM TG-56 report is not fulfilled.