Calculation of beta-ray dose distributions from ophthalmic applicators and comparison with measurements in a model eye

Dose distributions throughout the eye, from three types of beta-ray ophthalmic applicators, were calculated using the EGS4, ACCEPT 3.0, and other Monte Carlo codes. The applicators were those for which doses were measured in a recent international intercomparison [Med. Phys. 28, 1373 (2001)], planar applicators of 106Ru-106Rh and 90Sr-90Y and a concave 106Ru-106Rh applicator. The main purpose was to compare the results of the various codes with average experimental values. For the planar applicators, calculated and measured doses on the source axis agreed within the experimental errors (<10%) to a depth of 7 mm for 106Ru-106Rh and 5 mm for 90Sr-90Y. At greater distances the measured values are larger than those calculated. For the concave 106Ru-106Rh applicator, there was poor agreement among available calculations and only those calculated by ACCEPT 3.0 agreed with measured values. In the past, attempts have been made to derive such dose distributions simply, by integrating the appropriate point-source dose function over the source. Here, we investigated the accuracy of this procedure for encapsulated sources, by comparing such results with values calculated by Monte Carlo. An attempt was made to allow for the effects of the silver source window but no corrections were made for scattering from the source backing. In these circumstances, at 6 mm depth, the difference in the results of the two calculations was 14%-18% for a planar 106Ru-l06Rh applicator and up to 30% for the concave applicator. It becomes worse at greater depths. These errors are probably caused mainly by differences between the spectrum of beta particles transmitted by the silver window and those transmitted by a thickness of water having the same attenuation properties.     

Comparison of dosimetry recommendations for clinical proton beams

The formalism and data in the two most recent dosimetry recommendations for clinical proton beams, ICRU Report 59 and the forthcoming IAEA Code of Practice, are compared. Chamber calibrations in terms of air kerma and absorbed dose to water are considered, including five different cylindrical ionization chamber types commonly used in proton beam dosimetry. The methodology for both types of calibration for ionization chambers is described in ICRU Report 59. The procedure based on air kerma calibrations is compared with an alternative formalism based on IAEA Codes of Practice (TRS-277, TRS-381), modified for proton beams. The new IAEA Code of Practice is exclusively based on calibrations in terms of absorbed dose to water and a direct comparison with ICRU Report 59 recommendations is made. Common to the two formalisms are the fundamental quantities Wair and w(air) and their atmospheric conditions of applicability. The difference in the recommended values of the ratio w(air)/Wair (protons to 60Co) is as large as 2.3%. The use of Wair and w(air) values for dry air (IAEA) and for ambient air (ICRU) is a contribution to the discrepancy, and the ICRU usage is questioned. For air kerma based chamber calibrations, ICRU Report 59 does not take into account the effect of different compositions of the build-up cap and chamber wall on the calibration beam quality. For the chamber types included in the study, this introduces discrepancies of up to 1.1%. Combined with differences in the recommended basic data, discrepancies in absorbed dose determination in proton beams of up to 2.1% are found. For the absorbed dose to water based formalism, differences in the formalism, notably the omission of perturbation factors for 60Co in ICRU 59, and data yield discrepancies in calculated kQ factors, and in absorbed dose determinations, between -1.5% and +2.6%, depending on the chamber type and the proton beam quality.     

Medical Treatment in Coronary Patients: Is there Still a Gender Gap? Results from European Society of Cardiology EUROASPIRE V Registry

Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy - This study is aimed at investigating gender differences in the medical management of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Analyses were based on the ESC...     

Dosimetric study of the new Intersource125 iodine seed.

The use of low energy photon emitters for brachytherapy applications, as in the treatment of the prostate or of eye tumors, has significantly increased these last few years. New seed models for 125I have been recently introduced. The aim of this study is to determine the dosimetric parameters as recommended by the AAPM in the TG43 formalism for a new iodine seed design: the InterSource125 (Furnished by IBt, Seneffe, Belgium). Measurements are made with LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (size of 1 mm3) in solid water phantoms to obtain the dose constant, the radial dose function, and the anisotropy function. The TLDs were calibrated at 6 MV and an energy correction factor of 1.41 has been applied. The same dose parameters are also obtained by Monte Carlo calculations (MCNP4B) in solid water and in liquid water. The radial function was measured at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 cm and calculated between 0.3 and 7 cm. The anisotropy functions were measured at 2, 3, and 5 cm and calculated between 0.3 and 7 cm. The calculated and the measured TG43 functions for solid water are in excellent agreement. We have then calculated these functions in liquid water to obtain the dosimetric information for clinical applications as per TG43 recommendations. In WTI, the calculated dose rate constant is 0.98+/-1% and the measured value is 1.03 +/- 7 %. The calculated value for water is 1.02+/- 1 %. In conclusion, the dosimetric functions for the new iodine seed InterSource125 have been determined. They are quite different from the data of the well-known model 6711 from Amersham due to the absence of silver in the new seed. The characteristics are very similar to those of model 6702.     

Code of practice for clinical proton dosimetry

The objective of this document is to make recommendations for the determination of absorbed dose to tissue for clinical proton beams and to achieve uniformity in proton dosimetry. A Code of Practice has been chosen, providing specific guidelines for the choice of the detector and the method of determination of absorbed dose for proton beams only. This Code of Practice is confined specifically to the determination of absorbed dose and is not concerned with the biological effects of proton beams. It is recommended that dosimeters be calibrated by comparison with a calorimeter. If this is not available, a Faraday cup, or alternatively, an ionization chamber, with a 60Co calibration factor should be used. Physical parameters for determining the dose from tissue-equivalent ionization chamber measurements are given together with a worksheet. It is recommended that calibrations be carried out in water at the centre of the spread-out-Bragg-peak and that dose distributions be measured in a water phantom. It is estimated that the error in the calibrations will be less than +/- 5% (1 S.D.) in all cases. Adoption and implementation of this Code of Practice will facilitate the exchange of clinical information.     

Dosimetric study of a new palladium seed

In this paper, the dosimetric parameters for a new palladium seed design: the InterSource^103, 1 are presented as recommended by the AAPM in the TG-43 formalism. Measurements are made with LiF thermoluminescent dosimeters (size of 1 mm³) in solid water phantoms WT1 to obtain the dose constant, the radial dose function and the anisotropy function. The TLD were calibrated at 6 MV and an energy correction factor of 1.40 has been applied. The same dose parameters are also obtained by Monte Carlo calculations (MCNP4B) in solid water and in liquid water. The calculated and the measured TG-43 functions for solid water are in excellent agreement. In WT1, the calculated dose rate constant is 0.657±1% and the measured value is 0.672±7%. The calculated value for water is 0.692±1%.

The comparison with the previous study (Med. Phys. 27(5) (2000)) shows a very good agreement for the dose rate constant. The agreement for the radial function is poorer. For the measurements, it can be due to the difference of TLD settings. For the calculations the discrepancy could come from the different cross-section data utilized in the different Monte Carlo codes.

In conclusion, the dosimetric functions for the new iodine seed InterSource¹⁰³ have been determined using the MCNP4B Monte Carlo code and TLD measurement in solid water WT1.     

Optimization of a breast implant in Brachytherapy PDR: validation with Monte Carlo simulation and measurements with TLDs and GafChromic films.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The calculation of the dose distribution of Brachytherapy breast implant has been carried out in accordance with the Paris System (PS) in the majority of the radiotherapy departments in Europe. PDR (Pulsed Dose Rate) has lead to an improvement of the treatment procedure, optimization tools, however, allow an improvement of the treatment technique. The goal of this study was to perform a dosimetric verification of an optimized seven needles implant and to try to decrease the active length while preserving the same treatment volume. This corresponds to a ratio "treated length/active length" (L(t)/L(a)) that tends towards 1. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A dosimetry phantom was made of polystyrene, capable of receiving the implant, TLDs (LiF100 1mm(3) micro cubes) and films (GafChromic MD 55-2). Dose distributions for one source position and for the implant in conformity with the PS were calculated, utilizing version 14.2 of the Plato TPS (Nucletron); the remote afterloading system was a microSelectron-PDR (Nucletron). MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particles transport) modeling was used for various configurations to evaluate the influence of the composition of the medium, of the presence of the needles and the lack of scatter. RESULTS: The benefit of the optimization was shown by the determination of a L(t)/L(a) factor of 1.05 instead of 0.7 for the standard PS. The dose distributions calculated by Plato are in agreement with TLD and film measurements for the optimization and the PS (<5%). The TPS results were confirmed by MC calculation as well as by measurements. MC calculations also showed that only the lack of scatter had a significant influence on the dose received by the skin (20%) CONCLUSIONS: The optimization brings a significant benefit in protecting the skin and in homogeneity of the dose distribution in the treated volume. Through MC simulation, this work made it possible to update a parameter significantly influencing dose distribution calculations: the lack of scattering.     

Absorbed dose to water based dosimetry versus air kerma based dosimetry for high-energy photon beams: an experimental study

In recent years, a change has been proposed from air kerma based reference dosimetry to absorbed dose based reference dosimetry for all radiotherapy beams of ionizing radiation. In this paper, a dosimetry study is presented in which absorbed dose based dosimetry using recently developed formalisms was compared with air kerma based dosimetry using older formalisms. Three ionization chambers of each of three different types were calibrated in terms of absorbed dose to water and air kerma and sent to five hospitals. There, reference dosimetry with all the chambers was performed in a total of eight high-energy clinical photon beams. The selected chamber types were the NE2571, the PTW-30004 and the Wellh?fer-FC65G (previously Wellh?fer-IC70). Having a graphite wall, they exhibit a stable volume and the presence of an aluminium electrode ensures the robustness of these chambers. The data were analysed with the most important recommendations for clinical dosimetry: IAEA TRS-398, AAPM TG-51, IAEA TRS-277, NCS report-2 (presently recommended in Belgium) and AAPM TG-21. The necessary conversion factors were taken from those protocols, or calculated using the data in the different protocols if data for a chamber type are lacking. Polarity corrections were within 0.1% for all chambers in all beams. Recombination corrections were consistent with theoretical predictions, did not vary within a chamber type and only slightly between different chamber types. The maximum chamber-to-chamber variations of the dose obtained with the different formalisms within the same chamber type were between 0.2% and 0.6% for the NE2571, between 0.2% and 0.6% for the PTW-30004 and 0.1% and 0.3% for the Wellh?fer-FC65G for the different beams. The absorbed dose results for the NE2571 and Wellh?fer-FC65G chambers were in good agreement for all beams and all formalisms. The PTW-30004 chambers gave a small but systematically higher result compared to the result for the NE2571 chambers (on the average 0.1% for IAEA TRS-277, 0.3% for NCS report-2 and AAPM TG-21 and 0.4% for IAEA TRS-398 and AAPM TG-51). Within the air kerma based protocols, the results obtained with the TG-21 protocol were 0.4-0.8% higher mainly due to the differences in the data used. Both absorbed dose to water based formalisms resulted in consistent values within 0.3%. The change from old to new formalisms is discussed together with the traceability of calibration factors obtained at the primary absorbed dose and air kerma standards in the reference beams (60Co). For the particular situation in Belgium (calibrations at the Laboratory for Standard Dosimetry of Ghent) the change amounts to 0.1-0.6%. This is similar to the magnitude of the change determined in other countries.