Abstract: Purpose Monte Carlo (MC) simulation studies, aimed at evaluating the magnitude of tissue heterogeneity in I-125 prostate permanent seed implant brachytherapy (BT), customarily use clinical post-implant CT images to generate a virtual representation of a realistic patient model (virtual patient model). Metallic artifact reduction (MAR) techniques and tissue assignment schemes (TAS) are implemented on the post-implant CT images to mollify metallic artifacts due to BT seeds and to assign tissue types to the voxels corresponding to the bright seed spots and streaking artifacts, respectively. The objective of this study is to assess the combined influence of MAR and TAS on MC absorbed dose calculations in post-implant CT-based phantoms. The virtual patient models used for I-125 prostate implant MC absorbed dose calculations in this study are derived from the CT images of an external radiotherapy prostate patient without BT seeds and prostatic calcifications, thus averting the need to implement MAR and TAS. Methods The geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source is validated by comparing the MC calculated results of the TG-43 parameters for the line source approximation with the TG-43U1S2 consensus data. Four MC absorbed dose calculations are performed in two virtual patient models using the egs_brachy MC code: (1) TG-43-based D-w,w-TG(43), (2) D-w,D-w-MBDC that accounts for interseed scattering and attenuation (ISA), (3) D-m,D-m that examines ISA and tissue heterogeneity by scoring absorbed dose in tissue, and (4) D-w,D-m that unlike D-m,D-m scores absorbed dose in water. The MC absorbed doses (1) and (2) are simulated in a TG-43 patient phantom derived by assigning the densities of every voxel to 1.00 g cm(-3) (water), whereas MC absorbed doses (3) and (4) are scored in the TG-186 patient phantom generated by mapping the mass density of each voxel to tissue according to a CT calibration curve. The MC absorbed doses calculated in this study are compared with VariSeed v8.0 calculated absorbed doses. To evaluate the dosimetric effect of MAR and TAS, the MC absorbed doses of this work (independent of MAR and TAS) are compared to the MC absorbed doses of different I-125 source models from previous studies that were calculated with different MC codes using post-implant CT-based phantoms generated by implementing MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images. Results The very good agreement of TG-43 parameters of this study and the published consensus data within 3% validates the geometry of the IsoSeed I25.S17plus source. For the clinical studies, the TG-43-based calculations show a D-90 overestimation of more than 4% compared to the more realistic MC methods due to ISA and tissue composition. The results of this work generally show few discrepancies with the post-implant CT-based dosimetry studies with respect to the D-90 absorbed dose metric parameter. These discrepancies are mainly Type B uncertainties due to the different I-125 source models and MC codes. Conclusions The implementation of MAR and TAS on post-implant CT images have no dosimetric effect on the I-125 prostate MC absorbed dose calculation in post-implant CT-based phantoms.

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).

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.