Dosimetric characterization and output verification for conical brachytherapy surface applicators. Part II. High dose rate 192Ir sources. Issue 2 (23rd January 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fulkerson, Regina K.; Micka, John A.; DeWerd, Larry A.
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 41:Issue 2(2014)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2014-01-23
• Subjects: Dosimetry/exposure assessment -- Therapeutic applications, including brachytherapy -- Probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics; brachytherapy -- cancer -- dosimetry -- electron beams -- ionisation chambers -- linear accelerators -- Monte Carlo methods -- patient care -- phantoms -- quality assurance; skin cancer -- surface applicator -- HDR; Radiation therapy -- Linear accelerators -- Scintigraphy; Dosimetry -- Thermoluminescent dosimeters -- Calibration -- Surface treatments -- Infrared sources -- Error analysis -- Monte Carlo methods -- Surface ionization -- Brachytherapy -- Ionization chambers; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1118/1.4862506
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: : Historically, treatment of malignant surface lesions has been achieved with linear accelerator based electron beams or superficial x‐ray beams. Recent developments in the field of brachytherapy now allow for the treatment of surface lesions with specialized conical applicators placed directly on the lesion. Applicators are available for use with high dose rate (HDR) 192 Ir sources, as well as electronic brachytherapy sources. Part I of this paper discussed the applicators used with electronic brachytherapy sources. Part II will discuss those used with HDR 192 Ir sources. Although the use of these applicators has gained in popularity, the dosimetric characteristics have not been independently verified. Additionally, there is no recognized method of output verification for quality assurance procedures with applicators like these. Methods: : This work aims to create a cohesive method of output verification that can be used to determine the dose at the treatment surface as part of a quality assurance/commissioning process for surface applicators used with HDR electronic brachytherapy sources (Part I) and 192 Ir sources (Part II). Air‐kerma rate measurements for the 192 Ir sources were completed with several models of small‐volume ionization chambers to obtain an air‐kerma rate at the treatment surface for each applicator. Correction factors were calculated using MCNP5 and EGSnrc Monte Carlo codes in order to determine an applicator‐specific absorbed dose to water at the treatment surface from the measured air‐kerma rate. Additionally, relative dose measurements of the surface dose distributions and characteristic depth dose curves were completed in‐phantom. Results: : Theoretical dose distributions and depth dose curves were generated for each applicator and agreed well with the measured values. A method of output verification was created that allows users to determine the applicator‐specific dose to water at the treatment surface based on a measured air‐kerma rate. Conclusions: : The novel output verification methods described in this work will reduce uncertainties in dose delivery for treatments with these kinds of surface applicators, ultimately improving patient care.