skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Technique for routine output verification of Leipzig applicators with a well chamber

Abstract

The H-type Leipzig applicators are accessories of the microSelectron-HDR system (Nucletron, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) for treatment of superficial malignancies. Recently, the dose rate distributions in liquid water for the whole set of applicators using both source models available for the microSelectron-HDR afterloaders have been obtained by means of the experimentally validated Monte Carlo (MC) code GEANT4. Also an output table (cGy/hU) at 3 mm depth on the applicator central axis was provided. The output verification of these applicators by the user, prior to their clinical use, present practical problems: small detectors such as thermoluminescent dosimeters or parallel-plate ionization chambers are not easily used for verification in a clinical environment as they require a rigid setup with the Leipzig applicator and a phantom. In contrast, well-type ionization chambers are readily available in radiotherapy departments. This study presents a technique based on the HDR1000Plus well chamber (Standar Imaging) measurements with a special insert, which allows the output verification of the H-type Leipzig applicators on a routine basis. This technique defines correspondence factors (CF) between the in water dose rate output of the Leipzig applicators (cGy/hU) obtained with MC and the reading on the well chamber with the special insert, normalized to themore » HDR calibration factor with the HDR insert and to the source strength. To commission the applicators (with the well chamber and the special insert used), the physicist should check if the CF value agrees with its tabulated values presented in this work. If the differences are within 5% the tabulated output values can be used in clinical dosimetry. This technique allows the output validation of the Leipzig applicators with a well chamber widely used for HDR Ir-192 source strength measurements. It can easily be adapted to other types of well chambers for HDR source output verification.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1];  [2];  [2];  [3]
  1. Physics Section, Radiation Oncology Department. 'La Fe' University Hospital, Avda Campanar 21, E46009 Valencia (Spain) and ITIC, Clinica Benidorm, Avda. Alfonso Puchades 8, E03500 Benidorm (Spain)
  2. (Spain)
  3. (Netherlands)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
20774970
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 33; Journal Issue: 1; Other Information: DOI: 10.1118/1.2138008; (c) 2006 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BRACHYTHERAPY; DOSE RATES; DOSIMETRY; GAMMA DETECTION; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; IRIDIUM 192; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NEOPLASMS; NETHERLANDS; PHANTOMS; PRODUCTION; THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS; VALIDATION; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Perez-Calatayud, J., Granero, D., Ballester, F., Crispin, V., Laarse, R. van der, Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics and IFIC, University of Valencia-CSIC, Dr. Moliner 50, E46100 Burjassot, FIVO, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Beltran Baguena 9, E46009 Valencia, and Nucletron BV, Waardgelder 1, 3905 TH Veenendaal. Technique for routine output verification of Leipzig applicators with a well chamber. United States: N. p., 2006. Web. doi:10.1118/1.2138008.
Perez-Calatayud, J., Granero, D., Ballester, F., Crispin, V., Laarse, R. van der, Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics and IFIC, University of Valencia-CSIC, Dr. Moliner 50, E46100 Burjassot, FIVO, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Beltran Baguena 9, E46009 Valencia, & Nucletron BV, Waardgelder 1, 3905 TH Veenendaal. Technique for routine output verification of Leipzig applicators with a well chamber. United States. doi:10.1118/1.2138008.
Perez-Calatayud, J., Granero, D., Ballester, F., Crispin, V., Laarse, R. van der, Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics and IFIC, University of Valencia-CSIC, Dr. Moliner 50, E46100 Burjassot, FIVO, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Beltran Baguena 9, E46009 Valencia, and Nucletron BV, Waardgelder 1, 3905 TH Veenendaal. Sun . "Technique for routine output verification of Leipzig applicators with a well chamber". United States. doi:10.1118/1.2138008.
@article{osti_20774970,
title = {Technique for routine output verification of Leipzig applicators with a well chamber},
author = {Perez-Calatayud, J. and Granero, D. and Ballester, F. and Crispin, V. and Laarse, R. van der and Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics and IFIC, University of Valencia-CSIC, Dr. Moliner 50, E46100 Burjassot and FIVO, Fundacion Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia, Beltran Baguena 9, E46009 Valencia and Nucletron BV, Waardgelder 1, 3905 TH Veenendaal},
abstractNote = {The H-type Leipzig applicators are accessories of the microSelectron-HDR system (Nucletron, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) for treatment of superficial malignancies. Recently, the dose rate distributions in liquid water for the whole set of applicators using both source models available for the microSelectron-HDR afterloaders have been obtained by means of the experimentally validated Monte Carlo (MC) code GEANT4. Also an output table (cGy/hU) at 3 mm depth on the applicator central axis was provided. The output verification of these applicators by the user, prior to their clinical use, present practical problems: small detectors such as thermoluminescent dosimeters or parallel-plate ionization chambers are not easily used for verification in a clinical environment as they require a rigid setup with the Leipzig applicator and a phantom. In contrast, well-type ionization chambers are readily available in radiotherapy departments. This study presents a technique based on the HDR1000Plus well chamber (Standar Imaging) measurements with a special insert, which allows the output verification of the H-type Leipzig applicators on a routine basis. This technique defines correspondence factors (CF) between the in water dose rate output of the Leipzig applicators (cGy/hU) obtained with MC and the reading on the well chamber with the special insert, normalized to the HDR calibration factor with the HDR insert and to the source strength. To commission the applicators (with the well chamber and the special insert used), the physicist should check if the CF value agrees with its tabulated values presented in this work. If the differences are within 5% the tabulated output values can be used in clinical dosimetry. This technique allows the output validation of the Leipzig applicators with a well chamber widely used for HDR Ir-192 source strength measurements. It can easily be adapted to other types of well chambers for HDR source output verification.},
doi = {10.1118/1.2138008},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 1,
volume = 33,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 2006},
month = {Sun Jan 15 00:00:00 EST 2006}
}
  • 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){sup 192}Ir sources, as well as electronic brachytherapy sources. Part I of this paper will discuss the applicators used with electronic brachytherapy sources; Part II will discuss those used with HDR {sup 192}Ir sources. Although the use of these applicators has gained in popularity, the dosimetric characteristicsmore » including depth dose and surface dose distributions have not been independently verified. Additionally, there is no recognized method of output verification for quality assurance procedures with applicators like these. Existing dosimetry protocols available from the AAPM bookend the cross-over characteristics of a traditional brachytherapy source (as described by Task Group 43) being implemented as a low-energy superficial x-ray beam (as described by Task Group 61) as observed with the surface applicators of interest. 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{sup 192}Ir sources (Part II). Air-kerma rate measurements for the electronic brachytherapy sources were completed with an Attix Free-Air Chamber, as well as 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.« less
  • 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){sup 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 {sup 192}Ir sources. Although the use of these applicators has gained in popularity, the dosimetric characteristics havemore » 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{sup 192}Ir sources (Part II). Air-kerma rate measurements for the {sup 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.« less
  • 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){sup 192}Ir sources, as well as electronic brachytherapy sources. Part I of this paper will discuss the applicators used with electronic brachytherapy sources; Part II will discuss those used with HDR {sup 192}Ir sources. Although the use of these applicators has gained in popularity, the dosimetric characteristicsmore » including depth dose and surface dose distributions have not been independently verified. Additionally, there is no recognized method of output verification for quality assurance procedures with applicators like these. Existing dosimetry protocols available from the AAPM bookend the cross-over characteristics of a traditional brachytherapy source (as described by Task Group 43) being implemented as a low-energy superficial x-ray beam (as described by Task Group 61) as observed with the surface applicators of interest. 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{sup 192}Ir sources (Part II). Air-kerma rate measurements for the electronic brachytherapy sources were completed with an Attix Free-Air Chamber, as well as 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.« less
  • 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){sup 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 {sup 192}Ir sources. Although the use of these applicators has gained in popularity, the dosimetric characteristics havemore » 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{sup 192}Ir sources (Part II). Air-kerma rate measurements for the {sup 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.« less
  • Purpose: The provided output factors for Elekta Nucletron’s skin applicators are based on Monte Carlo simulations. These outputs have not been independently verified, and there is no recognized method for output verification of the vendor’s applicators. The purpose of this work is to validate the outputs provided by the vendor experimentally. Methods: Using a Flexitron Ir-192 HDR unit, three experimental methods were employed to determine dose with the 30 mm diameter Valencia applicator: first a gradient method using extrapolation ionization chamber (Far West Technology, EIC-1) measurements in solid water phantom at 3 mm SCD was used. The dose was derivedmore » based on first principles. Secondly a combination of a parallel plate chamber (Exradin A-10) and the EIC-1 was used to determine air kerma at 3 mm SCD. The air kerma was converted to dose to water in line with TG-61 formalism by using a muen ratio and a scatter factor measured with the skin applicators. Similarly a combination of the A-10 parallel plate chamber and gafchromic film (EBT 3) was also used. The Nk factor for the A-10 chamber was obtained through linear interpolation between ADCL supplied Nk factors for Cs-137 and M250. Results: EIC-1 measurements in solid water defined the outputs factor at 3 mm as 0.1343 cGy/U hr. The combination of A-10/ EIC-1 and A-10/EBT3 lead to output factors of 0.1383 and 0.1568 cGy/U hr, respectively. For comparison the output recommended by the vendor is 0.1659 cGy/U hr. Conclusion: All determined dose rates were lower than the vendor supplied values. The observed discrepancy between extrapolation chamber and film methods can be ascribed to extracameral gradient effects that may not be fully accounted for by the former method.« less