Abstract: Purpose: In order to facilitate a smooth transition for brachytherapy dose calculations from the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) formalism to model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs), treatment planning systems (TPSs) using a MBDCA require a set of well-defined test case plans characterized by Monte Carlo (MC) methods. This also permits direct dose comparison to TG-43 reference data. Such test case plans should be made available for use in the software commissioning process performed by clinical end users. To this end, a hypothetical, generic high-dose rate (HDR) Ir-192 source and a virtual water phantom were designed, which can be imported into a TPS. Methods: A hypothetical, generic HDR Ir-192 source was designed based on commercially available sources as well as a virtual, cubic water phantom that can be imported into any TPS in DICOM format. The dose distribution of the generic Ir-192 source when placed at the center of the cubic phantom, and away from the center under altered scatter conditions, was evaluated using two commercial MBDCAs [Oncentra (R) Brachy with advanced collapsed-cone engine (ACE) and BrachyVision AcuRos (TM)]. Dose comparisons were performed using state-of-the-art MC codes for radiation transport, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, GEANT4, MCNP5, MCNP6, and pENELopE2008. The methodologies adhered to recommendations in the AAPM TG-229 report on high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry. TG-43 dosimetry parameters, an along-away dose-rate table, and primary and scatter separated (PSS) data were obtained. The virtual water phantom of (201)(3) voxels (1 mm sides) was used to evaluate the calculated dose distributions. Two test case plans involving a single position of the generic HDR Ir-192 source in this phantom were prepared: (i) source centered in the phantom and (ii) source displaced 7 cm laterally from the center. Datasets were independently produced by different investigators. MC results were then compared against dose calculated using TG-43 and MBDCA methods. Results: TG-43 and PSS datasets were generated for the generic source, the PSS data for use with the ACE algorithm. The dose-rate constant values obtained from seven MC simulations, performed independently using different codes, were in excellent agreement, yielding an average of 1.1109 +/- 0.0004 cGy/(h U) (k = 1, Type A uncertainty). MC calculated dose-rate distributions for the two plans were also found to be in excellent agreement, with differences within type A uncertainties. Differences between commercial MBDCA and MC results were test, position, and calculation parameter dependent. On average, however, these differences were within 1% for ACUROS and 2% for ACE at clinically relevant distances. Conclusions: A hypothetical, generic HDR Ir-192 source was designed and implemented in two commercially available TPSs employing different MBDCAs. Reference dose distributions for this source were benchmarked and used for the evaluation of MBDCA calculations employing a virtual, cubic water phantom in the form of a CT DICOM image series. The implementation of a generic source of identical design in all TPSs using MBDCAs is an important step toward supporting univocal commissioning procedures and direct comparisons between TPSs.

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.

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.

Abstract: PurposeTo provide the first clinical test case for commissioning of Ir-192 brachytherapy model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) according to the AAPM TG-186 report workflow. Acquisition and Validation MethodsA computational patient phantom model was generated from a clinical multi-catheter Ir-192 HDR breast brachytherapy case. Regions of interest (ROIs) were contoured and digitized on the patient CT images and the model was written to a series of DICOM CT images using MATLAB. The model was imported into two commercial treatment planning systems (TPSs) currently incorporating an MBDCA. Identical treatment plans were prepared using a generic Ir-192 HDR source and the TG-43-based algorithm of each TPS. This was followed by dose to medium in medium calculations using the MBDCA option of each TPS. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation was performed in the model using three different codes and information parsed from the treatment plan exported in DICOM radiation therapy (RT) format. Results were found to agree within statistical uncertainty and the dataset with the lowest uncertainty was assigned as the reference MC dose distribution. Data Format and Usage NotesThe dataset is available online at ,. Files include the treatment plan for each TPS in DICOM RT format, reference MC dose data in RT Dose format, as well as a guide for database users and all files necessary to repeat the MC simulations. Potential ApplicationsThe dataset facilitates the commissioning of brachytherapy MBDCAs using TPS embedded tools and establishes a methodology for the development of future clinical test cases. It is also useful to non-MBDCA adopters for intercomparing MBDCAs and exploring their benefits and limitations, as well as to brachytherapy researchers in need of a dosimetric and/or a DICOM RT information parsing benchmark. Limitations include specificity in terms of radionuclide, source model, clinical scenario, and MBDCA version used for its preparation.

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.