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

Title: SU-G-201-05: Comparison of Different Methods for Output Verification of Eleckta Nucletron’s Valencia Skin Applicators

Abstract

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 derived 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 definedmore » 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

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. McLaren-Macomb, Clinton Township, MI (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649247
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; CESIUM 137; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; DOSE RATES; IRIDIUM 192; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SKIN; VERIFICATION; WATER

Citation Formats

Barrett, J, and Yudelev, M. SU-G-201-05: Comparison of Different Methods for Output Verification of Eleckta Nucletron’s Valencia Skin Applicators. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956878.
Barrett, J, & Yudelev, M. SU-G-201-05: Comparison of Different Methods for Output Verification of Eleckta Nucletron’s Valencia Skin Applicators. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956878.
Barrett, J, and Yudelev, M. 2016. "SU-G-201-05: Comparison of Different Methods for Output Verification of Eleckta Nucletron’s Valencia Skin Applicators". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956878.
@article{osti_22649247,
title = {SU-G-201-05: Comparison of Different Methods for Output Verification of Eleckta Nucletron’s Valencia Skin Applicators},
author = {Barrett, J and Yudelev, M},
abstractNote = {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 derived 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.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956878},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: and Leipzig applicators (VLAs) are single-channel brachytherapy surface applicators used to treat skin lesions up to 2cm diameter. Source dwell times can be calculated and entered manually after clinical set-up or ultrasound. This procedure differs dramatically from CT-based planning; the novelty and unfamiliarity could lead to severe errors. To build layers of safety and ensure quality, a multidisciplinary team created a protocol and applied Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) to the clinical procedure for HDR VLA skin treatments. Methods: team including physicists, physicians, nurses, therapists, residents, and administration developed a clinical procedure for VLA treatment. The procedure wasmore » evaluated using FMEA. Failure modes were identified and scored by severity, occurrence, and detection. The clinical procedure was revised to address high-scoring process nodes. Results: Several key components were added to the clinical procedure to minimize risk probability numbers (RPN): -Treatments are reviewed at weekly QA rounds, where physicians discuss diagnosis, prescription, applicator selection, and set-up. Peer review reduces the likelihood of an inappropriate treatment regime. -A template for HDR skin treatments was established in the clinical EMR system to standardize treatment instructions. This reduces the chances of miscommunication between the physician and planning physicist, and increases the detectability of an error during the physics second check. -A screen check was implemented during the second check to increase detectability of an error. -To reduce error probability, the treatment plan worksheet was designed to display plan parameters in a format visually similar to the treatment console display. This facilitates data entry and verification. -VLAs are color-coded and labeled to match the EMR prescriptions, which simplifies in-room selection and verification. Conclusion: Multidisciplinary planning and FMEA increased delectability and reduced error probability during VLA HDR Brachytherapy. This clinical model may be useful to institutions implementing similar procedures.« less
  • Purpose: The Valencia applicators have recently been introduced for HDR treatment of small and shallow superficial skin lesions (< 20 mm diameter and 3-mm depth). Per AAPM TG 56, any HDR applicator internal dimensions must be verified prior to clinical use. However radiographic and tomographic imaging to validate the Valencia applicators is impractical due to the Tungsten alloy housing and flattening filter. In this study, we propose to use EBT3 film to indirectly confirm the physical integrity of the Valencia applicators. Methods: Treatment plans were created using the Oncentra MasterPlan TPS v4.5 for the H2 (20-mm dia.) and H3 (30-mmmore » dia.) Valencia Applicators. A virtual CT phantom (2-mm slice thickness) was created with one source position in water. The published effective depth method was used for each applicator to delivery 500 cGy to a 3-mm depth using the TG-43 formalism. Film measurements (n=3) at 3-mm depth and vertical plane in solid water were performed for each applicator to verify the prescribed dose calculated by the TPS. Percent depth dose curves and off-axis profiles (phantom surface and 3-mm depth) were measured and compared to published data. Films were analyzed using an in-house written program and RIT113 v6 software. Film calibration was performed per TG-55 protocol using the Ir-192 source with NIST-traceable calibration. Results: The prescription absolute dose difference was 1% for the Valencia H2 applicator and 4% for the Valencia H3 applicator. The measured percent depth dose curves and off-axis dose profiles measured for the H2 and H2 Valencia applicators are in excellent agreement with the Granero et al. Monte Carlo results{sup 1}. Conclusion: Gafchromic EBT3 film can be used to indirectly verify the internal components of special HDR skin applicators constructed from high Z materials.{sup 1}Granero et al. “Design and evaluation of a HDR skin applicator with flattening filter”, Med. Phys. 35(2), 495–503, 2008.« less
  • 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 aremore » 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.« 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