|
|
Calatayud-Jordan, J., Candela-Juan, C., Palma, J. D., Pujades-Claumarchirant, M. C., Soriano, A., Gracia-Ochoa, M., et al. (2021). Influence of the simultaneous calibration of multiple ring dosimeters on the individual absorbed dose. J. Radiol. Prot., 41(2), 384–397.
Abstract: Ring dosimeters for personal dosimetry are calibrated in accredited laboratories following ISO 4037-3 guidelines. The simultaneous irradiation of multiple dosimeters would save time, but has to be carefully studied, since the scattering conditions could change and influence the absorbed dose in nearby dosimeters. Monte Carlo simulations using PENELOPE-2014 were performed to explore the need to increase the uncertainty of H-p (0.07) in the simultaneous irradiation of three and five DXT-RAD 707H-2 (Thermo Scientific) ring dosimeters with beam qualities: N-30, N-80 and N-300. Results show that the absorbed dose in each dosimeter is compatible with each of the others and with the reference simulation (a single dosimeter), with a coverage probability of 95% (k = 2). Comparison with experimental data yielded consistent results with the same coverage probability. Therefore, five ring dosimeters can be simultaneously irradiated with beam qualities ranging, at least, between N-30 and N-300 with a negligible impact on the uncertainty of H-p (0.07).
|
|
|
|
Candela-Juan, C., Ballester, F., Perez-Calatayud, J., & Vijande, J. (2015). Assaying multiple I-125 seeds with the well-ionization chamber SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 and a new insert. J. Contemp. Brachytherapy, 7(6), 492–496.
Abstract: Purpose: To provide a practical solution that can be adopted in clinical routine to fulfill the AAPM-ESTRO recommendations regarding quality assurance of seeds used in prostate permanent brachytherapy. The aim is to design a new insert for the well-ionization chamber SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 (PTW, Germany) that allows evaluating the mean air-kerma strength of up to ten I-125 seeds with one single measurement instead of measuring each seed individually. Material and methods: The material required is: a) the SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 well-ionization chamber provided with a PTW insert to measure the air-kerma strength S-K of one single seed at a time; b) a newly designed insert that accommodates ten seeds in one column, which allows measuring the mean S-K of the ten seeds in one single measurement; and c) a container with ten seeds from the same batch and class of the seeds used for the patient implant, and a set of nine non-radioactive seeds.The new insert is characterized by determining its calibration coefficient, used to convert the reading of the well-chamber when ten seeds are measured to their mean S-K. The proposed method is validated by comparing the mean S-K of the ten seeds obtained from the new insert with the individual measurement of S-K of each seed, evaluated with the PTW insert. Results: The ratio between the calibration coefficient of the new insert and the calibration coefficient of the PTW insert for the SourceCheck(4 Pi) 33005 is 1.135 +/- 0.007 (k = 1). The mean S-K of a set of ten seeds evaluated with this new system is in agreement with the mean value obtained from measuring independently the S-K of each seed. Conclusions: The new insert and procedure allow evaluating the mean S-K of ten seeds prior to the implant in a single measurement. The method is faster and more efficient from radiation protection point of view than measuring the individual S-K of each seed.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
