Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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) 192Ir source and a virtual water phantom were designed, which can be imported into a TPS. Methods: A hypothetical, generic HDR 192Ir 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 192Ir 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 192Ir 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 theACE 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 192Ir 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 FROM AUTHOR]

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) 192 Ir shielded applicator has been designed and benchmarked., Methods: A generic HDR 192 Ir 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-186 192 Ir 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 192 Ir brachytherapy., (© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

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.

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.

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.