Mark J. Rivard

Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations

Since publication of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report in 1995 (TG-43), both the utilization of permanent source implantation and the number of low-energy interstitial brachytherapy source models commercially available have dramatically increased. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has introduced a new primary standard of air-kerma strength, and the brachytherapy dosimetry literature has grown substantially, documenting both improved dosimetry methodologies and dosimetric characterization of particular source models. In response to these advances, the AAPM Low-energy Interstitial Brachytherapy Dosimetry subcommittee (LIBD) herein presents an update of the TG-43 protocol for calculation of dose-rate distributions around photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. The updated protocol (TG-43U1) includes (a) a revised definition of air-kerma strength; (b) elimination of apparent activity for specification of source strength; (c) elimination of the anisotropy constant in favor of the distance-dependent one-dimensional anisotropy function; (d) guidance on extrapolating tabulated TG-43 parameters to longer and shorter distances; and (e) correction for minor inconsistencies and omissions in the original protocol and its implementation. Among the corrections are consistent guidelines for use of point- and line-source geometry functions. In addition, this report recommends a unified approach to comparing reference dose distributions derived from different investigators to develop a single critically evaluated consensus dataset as well as guidelines for performing and describing future theoretical and experimental single-source dosimetry studies. Finally, the report includes consensus datasets, in the form of dose-rate constants, radial dose functions, and one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) anisotropy functions, for all low-energy brachytherapy source models that met the AAPM dosimetric prerequisites [Med. Phys. 25, 2269 (1998)] as of July 15, 2001. These include the following 125 I sources: Amersham Health models 6702 and 6711, Best Medical model 2301, North American Scientific Inc. (NASI) model MED3631-A/M, Bebig/Theragenics model I25.S06, and the Imagyn Medical Technologies Inc. isostar model IS-12501. The 103 Pd sources included are the Theragenics Corporation model 200 and NASI model MED3633. The AAPM recommends that the revised dose-calculation protocol and revised source-specific dose-rate distributions be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low energy brachytherapy interstitial sources. Depending upon the dose-calculation protocol and parameters currently used by individual physicists, adoption of this protocol may result in changes to patient dose calculations. These changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist preceding implementation of the current protocol.

Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism: Current status and recommendations for clinical implementation

The charge of Task Group 186 (TG-186) is to provide guidance for early adopters of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) for brachytherapy (BT) dose calculations to ensure practice uniformity. Contrary to external beam radiotherapy, heterogeneity correction algorithms have only recently been made available to the BT community. Yet, BT dose calculation accuracy is highly dependent on scatter conditions and photoelectric effect cross-sections relative to water. In specific situations, differences between the current water-based BT dose calculation formalism (TG-43) and MBDCAs can lead to differences in calculated doses exceeding a factor of 10. MBDCAs raise three major issues that are not addressed by current guidance documents: (1) MBDCA calculated doses are sensitive to the dose specification medium, resulting in energy-dependent differences between dose calculated to water in a homogeneous water geometry (TG-43), dose calculated to the local medium in the heterogeneous medium, and the intermediate scenario of dose calculated to a small volume of water in the heterogeneous medium. (2) MBDCA doses are sensitive to voxel-by-voxel interaction cross sections. Neither conventional single-energy CT nor ICRU∕ICRP tissue composition compilations provide useful guidance for the task of assigning interaction cross sections to each voxel. (3) Since each patient-source-applicator combination is unique, having reference data for each possible combination to benchmark MBDCAs is an impractical strategy. Hence, a new commissioning process is required. TG-186 addresses in detail the above issues through the literature review and provides explicit recommendations based on the current state of knowledge. TG-43-based dose prescription and dose calculation remain in effect, with MBDCA dose reporting performed in parallel when available. In using MBDCAs, it is recommended that the radiation transport should be performed in the heterogeneous medium and, at minimum, the dose to the local medium be reported along with the TG-43 calculated doses. Assignments of voxel-by-voxel cross sections represent a particular challenge. Electron density information is readily extracted from CT imaging, but cannot be used to distinguish between different materials having the same density. Therefore, a recommendation is made to use a number of standardized materials to maintain uniformity across institutions. Sensitivity analysis shows that this recommendation offers increased accuracy over TG-43. MBDCA commissioning will share commonalities with current TG-43-based systems, but in addition there will be algorithm-specific tasks. Two levels of commissioning are recommended: reproducing TG-43 dose parameters and testing the advanced capabilities of MBDCAs. For validation of heterogeneity and scatter conditions, MBDCAs should mimic the 3D dose distributions from reference virtual geometries. Potential changes in BT dose prescriptions and MBDCA limitations are discussed. When data required for full MBDCA implementation are insufficient, interim recommendations are made and potential areas of research are identified. Application of TG-186 guidance should retain practice uniformity in transitioning from the TG-43 to the MBDCA approach.

AAPM recommendations on dose prescription and reporting methods for permanent interstitial brachytherapy for prostate cancer: Report of Task Group 137

During the past decade, permanent radioactive source implantation of the prostate has become the standard of care for selected prostate cancer patients, and the techniques for implantation have evolved in many different forms. Although most implants use I125 or P103d sources, clinical use of C131s sources has also recently been introduced. These sources produce different dose distributions and irradiate the tumors at different dose rates. Ultrasound was used originally to guide the planning and implantation of sources in the tumor. More recently, CT and/or MR are used routinely in many clinics for dose evaluation and planning. Several investigators reported that the tumor volumes and target volumes delineated from ultrasound, CT, and MR can vary substantially because of the inherent differences in these imaging modalities. It has also been reported that these volumes depend critically on the time of imaging after the implant. Many clinics, in particular those using intraoperative implantation, perform imaging only on the day of the implant. Because the effects of edema caused by surgical trauma can vary from one patient to another and resolve at different rates, the timing of imaging for dosimetry evaluation can have a profound effect on the dose reported (to have been delivered), i.e., for the same implant (same dose delivered), CT at different timing can yield different doses reported. Also, many different loading patterns and margins around the tumor volumes have been used, and these may lead to variations in the dose delivered. In this report, the current literature on these issues is reviewed, and the impact of these issues on the radiobiological response is estimated. The radiobiological models for the biological equivalent dose (BED) are reviewed. Starting with the BED model for acute single doses, the models for fractionated doses, continuous low-dose-rate irradiation, and both homogeneous and inhomogeneous dose distributions, as well as tumor cure probability models, are reviewed. Based on these developments in literature, the AAPM recommends guidelines for dose prescription from a physics perspective for routine patient treatment, clinical trials, and for treatment planning software developers. The authors continue to follow the current recommendations on using D90 and V100 as the primary quantities, with more specific guidelines on the use of the imaging modalities and the timing of the imaging. The AAPM recommends that the postimplant evaluation should be performed at the optimum time for specific radionuclides. In addition, they encourage the use of a radiobiological model with a specific set of parameters to facilitate relative comparisons of treatment plans reported by different institutions using different loading patterns or radionuclides.

Supplement to the 2004 Update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report

Since publication of the 2004 update to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report (TG-43U1), several new low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources have become available. Many of these sources have satisfied the AAPM prerequisites for routine clinical use as of January 10, 2005, and are posted on the Joint AAPM/RPC Brachytherapy Seed Registry. Consequently, the AAPM has prepared this supplement to the 2004 AAPM TG-43 update. This paper presents the AAPM-approved consensus datasets for these sources, and includes the following 125I sources: Amersham model 6733, Draximage model LS-1, Implant Sciences model 3500, IBt model 1251L, IsoAid model IAI-125A, Mentor model SL-125/ SH-125, and SourceTech Medical model STM1251. The Best Medical model 2335 103Pd source is also included. While the methodology used to determine these data sets is identical to that published in the AAPM TG-43U1 report, additional information and discussion are presented here on some questions that arose since the publication of the TG-43U1 report. Specifically, details of interpolation and extrapolation methods are described further, new methodologies are recommended, and example calculations are provided. Despite these changes, additions, and clarifications, the overall methodology, the procedures for developing consensus data sets, and the dose calculation formalism largely remain the same as in the TG-43U1 report. Thus, the AAPM recommends that the consensus data sets and resultant source-specific dose-rate distributions included in this supplement be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Adoption of these recommendations may result in changes to patient dose calculations, and these changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to implementation of the current protocol.

A dosimetric uncertainty analysis for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources: Report of AAPM Task Group No. 138 and GEC-ESTRO

This report addresses uncertainties pertaining to brachytherapy single-source dosimetry preceding clinical use. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Note 1297 are taken as reference standards for uncertainty formalism. Uncertainties in using detectors to measure or utilizing Monte Carlo methods to estimate brachytherapy dose distributions are provided with discussion of the components intrinsic to the overall dosimetric assessment. Uncertainties provided are based on published observations and cited when available. The uncertainty propagation from the primary calibration standard through transfer to the clinic for air-kerma strength is covered first. Uncertainties in each of the brachytherapy dosimetry parameters of the TG-43 formalism are then explored, ending with transfer to the clinic and recommended approaches. Dosimetric uncertainties during treatment delivery are considered briefly but are not included in the detailed analysis. For low- and high-energy brachytherapy sources of low dose rate and high dose rate, a combined dosimetric uncertainty <5% (k=1) is estimated, which is consistent with prior literature estimates. Recommendations are provided for clinical medical physicists, dosimetry investigators, and source and treatment planning system manufacturers. These recommendations include the use of the GUM and NIST reports, a requirement of constancy of manufacturer source design, dosimetry investigator guidelines, provision of the lowest uncertainty for patient treatment dosimetry, and the establishment of an action level based on dosimetric uncertainty. These recommendations reflect the guidance of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) for their members and may also be used as guidance to manufacturers and regulatory agencies in developing good manufacturing practices for sources used in routine clinical treatments.

Calculated and measured brachytherapy dosimetry parameters in water for the Xoft Axxent X‐Ray Source: An electronic brachytherapy sourcea)

A new x-ray source, the model S700 Axxent™ X-Ray Source (Source), has been developed by Xoft Inc. for electronic brachytherapy. Unlike brachytherapy sources containing radionuclides, this Source may be turned on and off at will and may be operated at variable currents and voltages to change the dose rate and penetration properties. The in-water dosimetry parameters for this electronic brachytherapy source have been determined from measurements and calculations at 40, 45, and 50kV settings. Monte Carlo simulations of radiation transport utilized the MCNP5 code and the EPDL97-based mcplib04 cross-section library. Inter-tube consistency was assessed for 20 different Sources, measured with a PTW 34013 ionization chamber. As the Source is intended to be used for a maximum of ten treatment fractions, tube stability was also assessed. Photon spectra were measured using a high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector, and calculated using MCNP. Parameters used in the two-dimensional (2D) brachytherapy dosimetry formalism were determined. While the Source was characterized as a point due to the small anode size, <1mm, use of the one-dimensional (1D) brachytherapy dosimetry formalism is not recommended due to polar anisotropy. Consequently, 1D brachytherapy dosimetry parameters were not sought. Calculated point-source model radial dose functions at gP(5) were 0.20, 0.24, and 0.29 for the 40, 45, and 50kV voltage settings, respectively. For 1<r<7cm, measured point-source model radial dose functions were typically within 4% of calculated results. Calculated values for F(r,θ) for all operating voltages were within 15% of unity along the distal end (θ=0°), and ranged from F(1cm,160°)=0.2 to F(15cm,175°)=0.4 towards the catheter proximal end. For all three operating voltages using the PTW chamber, measured dependence of output as a function of azimuthal angle, ψ, was typically on average ±3% for 0°⩽ψ⩽360°. Excluding an energy response function, measurements of normalized photon energy spectra were made for three operating voltages, and were typically within 2% agreement with the normalized Monte Carlo calculated spectra. In general, the model S700 Source exhibited depth dose behavior similar to low-energy photon-emitting low dose rate sources I125 and Pd103, yet with capability for variable and much higher dose rates and subsequently adjustable penetration capabilities. This paper presents the calculated and measured in-water brachytherapy dosimetry parameters for the model S700 Source at the aforementioned three operating voltages.

The evolution of brachytherapy treatment planning

Brachytherapy is a mature treatment modality that has benefited from technological advances. Treatment planning has advanced from simple lookup tables to complex, computer-based dose-calculation algorithms. The current approach is based on the AAPM TG-43 formalism with recent advances in acquiring single-source dose distributions. However, this formalism has clinically relevant limitations for calculating patient dose. Dose-calculation algorithms are being developed based on Monte Carlo methods, collapsed cone, and solving the linear Boltzmann transport equation. In addition to improved dose-calculation tools, planning systems and brachytherapy treatment planning will account for material heterogeneities, scatter conditions, radiobiology, and image guidance. The AAPM, ESTRO, and other professional societies are working to coordinate clinical integration of these advancements. This Vision 20/20 article provides insight into these endeavors.

Dose calculation for photon‐emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV: Report of the AAPM and ESTRO

PURPOSE Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) on dose calculations for high-energy (average energy higher than 50 keV) photon-emitting brachytherapy sources are presented, including the physical characteristics of specific (192)Ir, (137)Cs, and (60)Co source models. METHODS This report has been prepared by the High Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry (HEBD) Working Group. This report includes considerations in the application of the TG-43U1 formalism to high-energy photon-emitting sources with particular attention to phantom size effects, interpolation accuracy dependence on dose calculation grid size, and dosimetry parameter dependence on source active length. RESULTS Consensus datasets for commercially available high-energy photon sources are provided, along with recommended methods for evaluating these datasets. Recommendations on dosimetry characterization methods, mainly using experimental procedures and Monte Carlo, are established and discussed. Also included are methodological recommendations on detector choice, detector energy response characterization and phantom materials, and measurement specification methodology. Uncertainty analyses are discussed and recommendations for high-energy sources without consensus datasets are given. CONCLUSIONS Recommended consensus datasets for high-energy sources have been derived for sources that were commercially available as of January 2010. Data are presented according to the AAPM TG-43U1 formalism, with modified interpolation and extrapolation techniques of the AAPM TG-43U1S1 report for the 2D anisotropy function and radial dose function.

Review of clinical brachytherapy uncertainties: Analysis guidelines of GEC-ESTRO and the AAPM

Background and purpose A substantial reduction of uncertainties in clinical brachytherapy should result in improved outcome in terms of increased local control and reduced side effects. Types of uncertainties have to be identified, grouped, and quantified. Methods A detailed literature review was performed to identify uncertainty components and their relative importance to the combined overall uncertainty. Results Very few components (e.g., source strength and afterloader timer) are independent of clinical disease site and location of administered dose. While the influence of medium on dose calculation can be substantial for low energy sources or non-deeply seated implants, the influence of medium is of minor importance for high-energy sources in the pelvic region. The level of uncertainties due to target, organ, applicator, and/or source movement in relation to the geometry assumed for treatment planning is highly dependent on fractionation and the level of image guided adaptive treatment. Most studies to date report the results in a manner that allows no direct reproduction and further comparison with other studies. Often, no distinction is made between variations, uncertainties, and errors or mistakes. The literature review facilitated the drafting of recommendations for uniform uncertainty reporting in clinical BT, which are also provided. The recommended comprehensive uncertainty investigations are key to obtain a general impression of uncertainties, and may help to identify elements of the brachytherapy treatment process that need improvement in terms of diminishing their dosimetric uncertainties. It is recommended to present data on the analyzed parameters (distance shifts, volume changes, source or applicator position, etc.), and also their influence on absorbed dose for clinically-relevant dose parameters (e.g., target parameters such as D90 or OAR doses). Publications on brachytherapy should include a statement of total dose uncertainty for the entire treatment course, taking into account the fractionation schedule and level of image guidance for adaptation. Conclusions This report on brachytherapy clinical uncertainties represents a working project developed by the Brachytherapy Physics Quality Assurances System (BRAPHYQS) subcommittee to the Physics Committee within GEC-ESTRO. Further, this report has been reviewed and approved by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Limited Resection for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Observed Local Control With Implantation of I-125 Brachytherapy Seeds

BACKGROUND Limited resection for lung cancer has been associated with a relatively high incidence of local recurrence. This retrospective study evaluates the impact of implanting radioactive iodine-125 (125I) seeds along the resection margin in these patients. METHODS Thirty-three patients with lung cancer who were not candidates for lobectomy or pneumonectomy underwent a limited resection of 35 primary non-small cell lung cancers. 125I brachytherapy seeds were implanted along the resection margin to reduce the risk of local recurrence. Survival using the Kaplan-Meier method and sites of recurrence were documented. Follow-up ranged from 20 to 98 months (median, 51 months). RESULTS The 5-year survival was 47% for all patients. For patients with T1N0 tumors, it was 67%, and for patients with T2N0 tumors, it was 39%. However, the cancer-specific survivals were 77% and 53% for patients with T1N0 and T2N0 tumors, respectfully. Ten patients experienced recurrence, with two local (at the resection margin) and six regional recurrences (five mediastinum, one chest wall). Both local recurrences and one regional recurrence occurred in the 19 patients with T1N0 tumors. CONCLUSIONS 125I seed implantation along the resected margin for compromised patients undergoing limited resection of lung cancer results in a relatively low incidence of local recurrence and may prolong survival.