Gabriel P. Fonseca

A generic high‐dose rate 192Ir brachytherapy source for evaluation of model‐based dose calculations beyond the TG‐43 formalism

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) (192)Ir source and a virtual water phantom were designed, which can be imported into a TPS. METHODS A hypothetical, generic HDR (192)Ir 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 (192)Ir 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(®) Brachy with advanced collapsed-cone engine (ACE) and BrachyVision ACUROS™ ]. 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 (192)Ir 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 (192)Ir 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.

Comparison of TG‐43 and TG‐186 in breast irradiation using a low energy electronic brachytherapy source

PURPOSE The recently updated guidelines for dosimetry in brachytherapy in TG-186 have recommended the use of model-based dosimetry calculations as a replacement for TG-43. TG-186 highlights shortcomings in the water-based approach in TG-43, particularly for low energy brachytherapy sources. The Xoft Axxent is a low energy (<50 kV) brachytherapy system used in accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI). Breast tissue is a heterogeneous tissue in terms of density and composition. Dosimetric calculations of seven APBI patients treated with Axxent were made using a model-based Monte Carlo platform for a number of tissue models and dose reporting methods and compared to TG-43 based plans. METHODS A model of the Axxent source, the S700, was created and validated against experimental data. CT scans of the patients were used to create realistic multi-tissue/heterogeneous models with breast tissue segmented using a published technique. Alternative water models were used to isolate the influence of tissue heterogeneity and backscatter on the dose distribution. Dose calculations were performed using Geant4 according to the original treatment parameters. The effect of the Axxent balloon applicator used in APBI which could not be modeled in the CT-based model, was modeled using a novel technique that utilizes CAD-based geometries. These techniques were validated experimentally. Results were calculated using two dose reporting methods, dose to water (Dw,m) and dose to medium (Dm,m), for the heterogeneous simulations. All results were compared against TG-43-based dose distributions and evaluated using dose ratio maps and DVH metrics. Changes in skin and PTV dose were highlighted. RESULTS All simulated heterogeneous models showed a reduced dose to the DVH metrics that is dependent on the method of dose reporting and patient geometry. Based on a prescription dose of 34 Gy, the average D90 to PTV was reduced by between ~4% and ~40%, depending on the scoring method, compared to the TG-43 result. Peak skin dose is also reduced by 10%-15% due to the absence of backscatter not accounted for in TG-43. The balloon applicator also contributed to the reduced dose. Other ROIs showed a difference depending on the method of dose reporting. CONCLUSIONS TG-186-based calculations produce results that are different from TG-43 for the Axxent source. The differences depend strongly on the method of dose reporting. This study highlights the importance of backscatter to peak skin dose. Tissue heterogeneities, applicator, and patient geometries demonstrate the need for a more robust dose calculation method for low energy brachytherapy sources.

The contribution from transit dose for Ir-192 HDR brachytherapy treatments

Brachytherapy treatment planning systems that use model-based dose calculation algorithms employ a more accurate approach that replaces the TG43-U1 water dose formalism and adopt the TG-186 recommendations regarding composition and geometry of patients and other relevant effects. However, no recommendations were provided on the transit dose due to the source traveling inside the patient. This study describes a methodology to calculate the transit dose using information from the treatment planning system (TPS) and considering the sources instantaneous and average speed for two prostate and two gynecological cases. The trajectory of the (192)Ir HDR source was defined by importing applicator contour points and dwell positions from the TPS. The transit dose distribution was calculated using the maximum speed, the average speed and uniform accelerations obtained from the literature to obtain an approximate continuous source distribution simulated with a Monte Carlo code. The transit component can be negligible or significant depending on the speed profile adopted, which is not clearly reported in the literature. The significance of the transit dose can also be due to the treatment modality; in our study interstitial treatments exhibited the largest effects. Considering the worst case scenario the transit dose can reach 3% of the prescribed dose in a gynecological case with four catheters and up to 11.1% when comparing the average prostate dose for a case with 16 catheters. The transit dose component increases by increasing the number of catheters used for HDR brachytherapy, reducing the total dwell time per catheter or increasing the number of dwell positions with low dwell times. This contribution may become significant (>5%) if it is not corrected appropriately. The transit dose cannot be completely compensated using simple dwell time corrections since it may have a non-uniform distribution. An accurate measurement of the source acceleration and maximum speed should be incorporated in clinical practice or provided by the manufacturer to determine the transit dose component with high accuracy.

HDR Ir-192 source speed measurements using a high speed video camera

PURPOSE The dose delivered with a HDR (192)Ir afterloader can be separated into a dwell component, and a transit component resulting from the source movement. The transit component is directly dependent on the source speed profile and it is the goal of this study to measure accurate source speed profiles. METHODS A high speed video camera was used to record the movement of a (192)Ir source (Nucletron, an Elekta company, Stockholm, Sweden) for interdwell distances of 0.25-5 cm with dwell times of 0.1, 1, and 2 s. Transit dose distributions were calculated using a Monte Carlo code simulating the source movement. RESULTS The source stops at each dwell position oscillating around the desired position for a duration up to (0.026 ± 0.005) s. The source speed profile shows variations between 0 and 81 cm/s with average speed of ∼ 33 cm/s for most of the interdwell distances. The source stops for up to (0.005 ± 0.001) s at nonprogrammed positions in between two programmed dwell positions. The dwell time correction applied by the manufacturer compensates the transit dose between the dwell positions leading to a maximum overdose of 41 mGy for the considered cases and assuming an air-kerma strength of 48 000 U. The transit dose component is not uniformly distributed leading to over and underdoses, which is within 1.4% for commonly prescribed doses (3-10 Gy). CONCLUSIONS The source maintains its speed even for the short interdwell distances. Dose variations due to the transit dose component are much lower than the prescribed treatment doses for brachytherapy, although transit dose component should be evaluated individually for clinical cases.

Determination of transit dose profile for a 192Ir HDR source

PURPOSE Several studies have reported methodologies to calculate and correct the transit dose component of the moving radiation source for high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy planning systems. However, most of these works employ the average source speed, which varies significantly with the measurement technique used, and does not represent a realistic speed profile, therefore, providing an inaccurate dose determination. In this work, the authors quantified the transit dose component of a HDR unit based on the measurement of the instantaneous source speed to produce more accurate dose values. METHODS The Nucletron microSelectron-HDR Ir-192 source was characterized considering the Task Group 43 (TG-43U1) specifications. The transit dose component was considered through the calculation of the dose distribution using a Monte Carlo particle transport code, MCNP5, for each source position and correcting it by the source speed. The instantaneous source speed measurements were performed in a previous work using two optical fibers connected to a photomultiplier and an oscilloscope. Calculated doses were validated by comparing relative dose profiles with those obtained experimentally using radiochromic films. RESULTS TG-43U1 source parameters were calculated to validate the Monte Carlo simulations. These agreed with the literature, with differences below 1% for the majority of the points. Calculated dose profiles without transit dose were also validated by comparison with ONCENTRA(®) Brachy v. 3.3 dose values, yielding differences within 1.5%. Dose profiles obtained with MCNP5 corrected using the instantaneous source speed profile showed differences near dwell positions of up to 800% in comparison to values corrected using the average source speed, but they are in good agreement with the experimental data, showing a maximum discrepancy of approximately 3% of the maximum dose. Near a dwell position the transit dose is about 22% of the dwell dose delivered by the source dwelling 1 s and reached 104.0 cGy per irradiation in a hypothetical clinical case studied in this work. CONCLUSIONS The present work demonstrated that the transit dose correction based on average source speed fails to accurately correct the dose, indicating that the correct speed profile should be considered. The impact on total dose due to the transit dose correction near the dwell positions is significant and should be considered more carefully in treatments with high dose rate, several catheters, multiple dwell positions, small dwell times, and several fractions.

The use of tetrahedral mesh geometries in Monte Carlo simulation of applicator based brachytherapy dose distributions

Accounting for brachytherapy applicator attenuation is part of the recommendations from the recent report of AAPM Task Group 186. To do so, model based dose calculation algorithms require accurate modelling of the applicator geometry. This can be non-trivial in the case of irregularly shaped applicators such as the Fletcher Williamson gynaecological applicator or balloon applicators with possibly irregular shapes employed in accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) performed using electronic brachytherapy sources (EBS). While many of these applicators can be modelled using constructive solid geometry (CSG), the latter may be difficult and time-consuming. Alternatively, these complex geometries can be modelled using tessellated geometries such as tetrahedral meshes (mesh geometries (MG)). Recent versions of Monte Carlo (MC) codes Geant4 and MCNP6 allow for the use of MG. The goal of this work was to model a series of applicators relevant to brachytherapy using MG. Applicators designed for (192)Ir sources and 50 kV EBS were studied; a shielded vaginal applicator, a shielded Fletcher Williamson applicator and an APBI balloon applicator. All applicators were modelled in Geant4 and MCNP6 using MG and CSG for dose calculations. CSG derived dose distributions were considered as reference and used to validate MG models by comparing dose distribution ratios. In general agreement within 1% for the dose calculations was observed for all applicators between MG and CSG and between codes when considering volumes inside the 25% isodose surface. When compared to CSG, MG required longer computation times by a factor of at least 2 for MC simulations using the same code. MCNP6 calculation times were more than ten times shorter than Geant4 in some cases. In conclusion we presented methods allowing for high fidelity modelling with results equivalent to CSG. To the best of our knowledge MG offers the most accurate representation of an irregular APBI balloon applicator.

A generic TG-186 shielded applicator for commissioning model-based dose calculation algorithms for high-dose-rate 192Ir brachytherapy

Purpose: A joint working group was created by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the Australasian Brachytherapy Group (ABG) with the charge, among others, to develop a set of well‐defined test case plans and perform calculations and comparisons with model‐based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs). Its main goal is to facilitate a smooth transition from the AAPM Task Group No. 43 (TG‐43) dose calculation formalism, widely being used in clinical practice for brachytherapy, to the one proposed by Task Group No. 186 (TG‐186) for MBDCAs. To do so, in this work a hypothetical, generic high‐dose rate (HDR) 192Ir shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked. Methods: A generic HDR 192Ir shielded applicator was designed based on three commercially available gynecological applicators as well as a virtual cubic water phantom that can be imported into any DICOM‐RT compatible treatment planning system (TPS). The absorbed dose distribution around the applicator with the TG‐186 192Ir source located at one dwell position at its center was computed using two commercial TPSs incorporating MBDCAs (Oncentra® Brachy with Advanced Collapsed‐cone Engine, ACE™, and BrachyVision ACUROS™) and state‐of‐the‐art Monte Carlo (MC) codes, including ALGEBRA, BrachyDose, egs_brachy, Geant4, MCNP6, and Penelope2008. TPS‐based volumetric dose distributions for the previously reported “source centered in water” and “source displaced” test cases, and the new “source centered in applicator” test case, were analyzed here using the MCNP6 dose distribution as a reference. Volumetric dose comparisons of TPS results against results for the other MC codes were also performed. Distributions of local and global dose difference ratios are reported. Results: The local dose differences among MC codes are comparable to the statistical uncertainties of the reference datasets for the “source centered in water” and “source displaced” test cases and for the clinically relevant part of the unshielded volume in the “source centered in applicator” case. Larger local differences appear in the shielded volume or at large distances. Considering clinically relevant regions, global dose differences are smaller than the local ones. The most disadvantageous case for the MBDCAs is the one including the shielded applicator. In this case, ACUROS agrees with MC within [−4.2%, +4.2%] for the majority of voxels (95%) while presenting dose differences within [−0.12%, +0.12%] of the dose at a clinically relevant reference point. For ACE, 95% of the total volume presents differences with respect to MC in the range [−1.7%, +0.4%] of the dose at the reference point. Conclusions: The combination of the generic source and generic shielded applicator, together with the previously developed test cases and reference datasets (available in the Brachytherapy Source Registry), lay a solid foundation in supporting uniform commissioning procedures and direct comparisons among treatment planning systems for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy.

Dose specification for Ir-192 high dose rate brachytherapy in terms of dose-to-water-in-medium and dose-to-medium-in-medium

Dose calculation in high dose rate brachytherapy with (192)Ir is usually based on the TG-43U1 protocol where all media are considered to be water. Several dose calculation algorithms have been developed that are capable of handling heterogeneities with two possibilities to report dose: dose-to-medium-in-medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water-in-medium (Dw,m). The relation between Dm,m and Dw,m for (192)Ir is the main goal of this study, in particular the dependence of Dw,m on the dose calculation approach using either large cavity theory (LCT) or small cavity theory (SCT). A head and neck case was selected due to the presence of media with a large range of atomic numbers relevant to tissues and mass densities such as air, soft tissues and bone interfaces. This case was simulated using a Monte Carlo (MC) code to score: Dm,m, Dw,m (LCT), mean photon energy and photon fluence. Dw,m (SCT) was derived from MC simulations using the ratio between the unrestricted collisional stopping power of the actual medium and water. Differences between Dm,m and Dw,m (SCT or LCT) can be negligible (<1%) for some tissues e.g. muscle and significant for other tissues with differences of up to 14% for bone. Using SCT or LCT approaches leads to differences between Dw,m (SCT) and Dw,m (LCT) up to 29% for bone and 36% for teeth. The mean photon energy distribution ranges from 222 keV up to 356 keV. However, results obtained using mean photon energies are not equivalent to the ones obtained using the full, local photon spectrum. This work concludes that it is essential that brachytherapy studies clearly report the dose quantity. It further shows that while differences between Dm,m and Dw,m (SCT) mainly depend on tissue type, differences between Dm,m and Dw,m (LCT) are, in addition, significantly dependent on the local photon energy fluence spectrum which varies with distance to implanted sources.

Online pretreatment verification of high-dose rate brachytherapy using an imaging panel

Brachytherapy is employed to treat a wide variety of cancers. However, an accurate treatment verification method is currently not available. This study describes a pre-treatment verification system that uses an imaging panel (IP) to verify important aspects of the treatment plan. A detailed modelling of the IP was only possible with an extensive calibration performed using a robotic arm. Irradiations were performed with a high dose rate (HDR) 192Ir source within a water phantom. An empirical fit was applied to measure the distance between the source and the detector so 3D Cartesian coordinates of the dwell positions can be obtained using a single panel. The IP acquires 7.14 fps to verify the dwell times, dwell positions and air kerma strength (Sk). A gynecological applicator was used to create a treatment plan that was registered with a CT image of the water phantom used during the experiments for verification purposes. Errors (shifts, exchanged connections and wrong dwell times) were simulated to verify the proposed verification system. Cartesian source positions (panel measurement plane) have a standard deviation of about 0.02 cm. The measured distance between the source and the panel (z-coordinate) have a standard deviation up to 0.16 cm and maximum absolute error of  ≈0.6 cm if the signal is close to sensitive limit of the panel. The average response of the panel is very linear with Sk. Therefore, Sk measurements can be performed with relatively small errors. The measured dwell times show a maximum error of 0.2 s which is consistent with the acquisition rate of the panel. All simulated errors were clearly identified by the proposed system. The use of IPs is not common in brachytherapy, however, it provides considerable advantages. It was demonstrated that the IP can accurately measure Sk, dwell times and dwell positions.

Monte Carlo studies on water and LiF cavity properties for dose-reporting quantities when using x-ray and brachytherapy sources

Model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) are the current tools to estimate dose in brachytherapy, which takes into account heterogeneous medium, therefore, departing from water-based formalism (TG-43). One aspect associated to MBCDA is the choice of dose specification medium since it offers two possibilities to report dose: (a) dose to medium in medium, D m,m; and (b) dose to water in medium, D w,m. The discussion about the preferable quantity to be reported is underway. The dose conversion factors, DCF, between dose to water in medium, D w,m, and dose to medium in medium, D m,m, is based on cavity theory and can be obtained using different approaches. When experimental dose verification is desired using, for example, thermoluminescent LiF dosimeters, as in in vivo dose measurements, a third quantity is obtained, which is the dose to LiF in medium, D LiF,m. In this case, DCF to convert from D LiF,m to D w,m or D m,m is necessary. The objective of this study is to estimate DCFs using different approaches, present in the literature, quantifying the differences between them. Also, dose in water and LiF cavities in different tissue media and respective conversion factors to be able to convert LiF-based dose measured values into dose in water or tissue were obtained. Simple cylindrical phantoms composed by different tissue equivalent materials (bone, lung, water and adipose) are modelled. The phantoms contain a radiation source and a cavity with 0.002 69 cm3 in size, which is a typical volume of a disc type LiF dosimeter. Three x-rays qualities with average energies ranging from 47 to 250 keV, and three brachytherapy sources, 60Co, 192Ir and 137Cs, are considered. Different cavity theory approaches for DCF calculations and different cavity/medium combinations have been considered in this study. DCF values for water/bone and LiF/bone cases have strong dependence with energy increasing as the photon energy increases. DCF values also increase with energy for LiF/lung and water/lung cases but, they are much less dependent of energy. For LiF/adipose, water/adipose and LiF/water cases, the DCF values are also dependent of photon energy but, decreases as the energy increases. Maximum difference of 12% has been found compared to values in literature.