|
|
Gimenez-Alventosa, V., Gimenez, V., Ballester, F., Vijande, J., & Andreo, P. (2018). Correction factors for ionization chamber measurements with the 'Valencia' and 'large field Valencia' brachytherapy applicators. Phys. Med. Biol., 63(12), 125004–10pp.
Abstract: Treatment of small skin lesions using HDR brachytherapy applicators is a widely used technique. The shielded applicators currently available in clinical practice are based on a tungsten-alloy cup that collimates the source-emitted radiation into a small region, hence protecting nearby tissues. The goal of this manuscript is to evaluate the correction factors required for dose measurements with a plane-parallel ionization chamber typically used in clinical brachytherapy for the 'Valencia' and 'large field Valencia' shielded applicators. Monte Carlo simulations have been performed using the PENELOPE-2014 system to determine the absorbed dose deposited in a water phantom and in the chamber active volume with a Type A uncertainty of the order of 0.1%. The average energies of the photon spectra arriving at the surface of the water phantom differ by approximately 10%, being 384 keV for the 'Valencia' and 343 keV for the 'large field Valencia'. The ionization chamber correction factors have been obtained for both applicators using three methods, their values depending on the applicator being considered. Using a depth-independent global chamber perturbation correction factor and no shift of the effective point of measurement yields depth-dose differences of up to 1% for the 'Valencia' applicator. Calculations using a depth-dependent global perturbation factor, or a shift of the effective point of measurement combined with a constant partial perturbation factor, result in differences of about 0.1% for both applicators. The results emphasize the relevance of carrying out detailed Monte Carlo studies for each shielded brachytherapy applicator and ionization chamber.
|
|
|
|
Gimenez-Alventosa, V., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., & Perez-Calatayud, J. (2016). Transit dose comparisons for Co-60 and Ir-192 HDR sources. J. Radiol. Prot., 36(4), 858–864.
Abstract: The goal of this study is to evaluate the ambient dose due to the transit of high dose rate (HDR) Co-60 sources along a transfer tube as compared to Ir-192 ones in a realistic clinical scenario. This goal is accomplished by evaluating air-kerma differences with Monte Carlo calculations using PENELOPE2011. Scatter from both the afterloader and the patient was not taken into account. Two sources, mHDR-v2 and Flexisource Co-60, (Elekta Brachytherapy, Veenendaal, the Netherlands) have been considered. These sources were simulated within a standard transfer tube located in an infinite air phantom. The movement of the source was included by displacing their positions along the connecting tube from z = – 75 cm to z = + 75 cm and combining them. Since modern afterloaders like Flexitron (Elekta) or Saginova (BEBIG GmbH) are able to use equally 192Ir and 60Co sources, it was assumed that both sources are displaced with equal speed. Typical HDR source activity content values were provided by the manufacturer. 2D distributions were obtained with type-A uncertainties (k = 2) less than 0.01%. From those, the air-kerma ratio Co-60/Ir-192 was evaluated weighted by their corresponding typical activities. It was found that it varies slowly with distance (less than 10% variation at 75 cm) but strongly in time due to the shorter half-life of the 192Ir (73.83 d). The maximum ratio is located close to the tube. It reaches a value of 0.57 when the typical activity of the sources at the time when they were installed by the vendor was used. Such ratio increases up to 1.28 at the end of the recommended working life (90 d) of the Ir-192 source. Co-60/Ir-192 air-kerma ratios are almost constant (0.51-0.57) in the vicinity of the source-tube with recent installed sources. Nevertheless, air-kerma ratios increase rapidly (1.15-1.29) whenever the Ir-192 is approaching the end of its life. In case of a medical event requiring the medical staff to access the treatment room, these ratios indicate that the dosimetric impact on the medical team will be lower, with a few exceptions, in the case of Co-60-based HDR brachytherapy as compared to Ir-192-based one when typical air-kerma strength values are considered.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Granero, D., Perez-Calatayud, J., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., & Rivard, M. J. (2014). Limitations of the TG-43 formalism for skin high-dose-rate brachytherapy dose calculations. Med. Phys., 41(2), 021703–8pp.
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.
|
|
|
|
Granero, D., Vijande, J., Ballester, F., & Rivard, M. J. (2011). Dosimetry revisited for the HDR Ir-192 brachytherapy source model mHDR-v2. Med. Phys., 38(1), 487–494.
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.
|
|
