A Monte Carlo study of the relative biological effectiveness in surface brachytherapy. Issue 8 (16th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Valdes‐Cortez, Christian; Niatsetski, Yury; Perez‐Calatayud, Jose; Ballester, Facundo; Vijande, Javier
• Is Part Of: Medical physics. Volume 49:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: 5576
• Page End: 5588
• Publication Date: 2022-06-16
• Subjects: Monte Carlo -- relative biological effectiveness -- surface HDR brachytherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Medical physics; Geneeskunde; Natuurkunde; Toepassingen; Biophysics; Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/mp.15774
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-2405

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: This work aims to simulate clustered DNA damage from ionizing radiation and estimate the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) for radionuclide (rBT)‐ and electronic (eBT)‐based surface brachytherapy through a hybrid Monte Carlo (MC) approach, using realistic models of the sources and applicators. Methods: Damage from ionizing radiation has been studied using the Monte Carlo Damage Simulation algorithm using as input the primary electron fluence simulated using a state‐of‐the‐art MC code, PENELOPE‐2018. Two 192 Ir rBT applicators, Valencia and Leipzig, one 60 Co source with a Freiburg Flap applicator (reference source), and two eBT systems, Esteya and INTRABEAM, have been included in this study implementing full realizations of their geometries as disclosed by the manufacturer. The role played by filtration and tube kilovoltage has also been addressed. Results: For rBT, an RBE value of about 1.01 has been found for the applicators and phantoms considered. In the case of eBT, RBE values for the Esteya system show an almost constant RBE value of about 1.06 for all depths and materials. For INTRABEAM, variations in the range of 1.12–1.06 are reported depending on phantom composition and depth. Modifications in the Esteya system, filtration, and tube kilovoltage give rise to variations in the same range. Conclusions: Current clinical practice does not incorporate biological effects in surface brachytherapy. Therefore, the same absorbed dose is administered to the patients independently on the particularities of the rBT or eBT system considered. The almost constant RBE values reported for rBT support that assumption regardless of the details of the patient geometry, the presence of a flattening filter in the applicator design, or even significant modifications in the photon energy spectra above 300 keV. That is not the case for eBT, where a clear dependence on the eBT system and the characteristics of the patient geometry are reported. A complete study specific for each eBT system, including detailed applicator characteristics (size, shape, filtering, among others) and common anatomical locations, should be performed before adopting an existing RBE value.