No abstract

Recommended consensus datasets for high-energy sources have been derived for sources that were commercially available as of January 2010. Data are presented according to the AAPM TG-43U1 formalism, with modified interpolation and extrapolation techniques of the AAPM TG-43U1S1 report for the 2D anisotropy function and radial dose function.

Dosimetry of eye plaques for ocular tumors presents unique challenges in brachytherapy. The challenges in accurate dosimetry are in part related to the steep dose gradient in the tumor and critical structures that are within millimeters of radioactive sources. In most clinical applications, calculations of dose distributions around eye plaques assume a homogenous water medium and full scatter conditions. Recent Monte Carlo (MC)-based eye-plaque dosimetry simulations have demonstrated that the perturbation effects of heterogeneous materials in eye plaques, including the gold-alloy backing and Silastic insert, can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. Even additional levels of complexity introduced through the use of gold foil "seed-guides" and custom-designed plaques can be calculated accurately using modern MC techniques. Simulations accounting for the aforementioned complexities indicate dose discrepancies exceeding a factor of ten to selected critical structures compared to conventional dose calculations. Task Group 129 was formed to review the literature; re-examine the current dosimetry calculation formalism; and make recommendations for eye-plaque dosimetry, including evaluation of brachytherapy source dosimetry parameters and heterogeneity correction factors. A literature review identified modern assessments of dose calculations for Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) design plaques, including MC analyses and an intercomparison of treatment planning systems (TPS) detailing differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous plaque calculations using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) TG-43U1 brachytherapy dosimetry formalism and MC techniques. This review identified that a commonly used prescription dose of 85 Gy at 5 mm depth in homogeneous medium delivers about 75 Gy and 69 Gy at the same 5 mm depth for specific (125)I and (103)Pd sources, respectively, when accounting for COMS plaque heterogeneities. Thus, the adoption of heterogeneous dose calculation methods in clinical practice would result in dose differences >10% and warrant a careful evaluation of the corresponding changes in prescription doses. Doses to normal ocular structures vary with choice of radionuclide, plaque location, and prescription depth, such that further dosimetric evaluations of the adoption of MC-based dosimetry methods are needed. The AAPM and American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) recommend that clinical medical physicists should make concurrent estimates of heterogeneity-corrected delivered dose using the information in this report's tables to prepare for brachytherapy TPS that can account for material heterogeneities and for a transition to heterogeneity-corrected prescriptive goals. It is recommended that brachytherapy TPS vendors include material heterogeneity corrections in their systems and take steps to integrate planned plaque localization and image guidance. In the interim, before the availability of commercial MC-based brachytherapy TPS, it is recommended that clinical medical physicists use...

During the past decade, permanent radioactive source implantation of the prostate has become the standard of care for selected prostate cancer patients, and the techniques for implantation have evolved in many different forms. Although most implants use 125I or 103Pd sources, clinical use of 131Cs sources has also recently been introduced. These sources produce different dose distributions and irradiate the tumors at different dose rates. Ultrasound was used originally to guide the planning and implantation of sources in the tumor. More recently, CT and/or MR are used routinely in many clinics for dose evaluation and planning. Several investigators reported that the tumor volumes and target volumes delineated from ultrasound, CT, and MR can vary substantially because of the inherent differences in these imaging modalities. It has also been reported that these volumes depend critically on the time of imaging after the implant. Many clinics, in particular those using intraoperative implantation, perform imaging only on the day of the implant. Because the effects of edema caused by surgical trauma can vary from one patient to another and resolve at different rates, the timing of imaging for dosimetry evaluation can have a profound effect on the dose reported (to have been delivered), i.e., for the same implant (same dose delivered), CT at different timing can yield different doses reported. Also, many different loading patterns and margins around the tumor volumes have been used, and these may lead to variations in the dose delivered. In this report, the current literature on these issues is reviewed, and the impact of these issues on the radiobiological response is estimated. The radiobiological models for the biological equivalent dose (BED) are reviewed. Starting with the BED model for acute single doses, the models for fractionated doses, continuous low-dose-rate irradiation, and both homogeneous and inhomogeneous dose distributions, as well as tumor cure probability models, are reviewed. Based on these developments in literature, the AAPM recommends guidelines for dose prescription from a physics perspective for routine patient treatment, clinical trials, and for treatment planning software developers. The authors continue to follow the current recommendations on using D90 and V100 as the primary quantitles, with more specific guidelines on the use of the imaging modalities and the timing of the imaging. The AAPM recommends that the postimplant evaluation should be performed at the optimum time for specific radionuclides. In addition, they encourage the use of a radiobiological model with a specific set of parameters to facilitate relative comparisons of treatment plans reported by different institutions using different loading patterns or radionuclides.

Since publication of the 2004 update to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report (TG-43U1), several new low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources have become available. Many of these sources have satisfied the AAPM prerequisites for routine clinical use as of January 10, 2005, and are posted on the Joint AAPM/RPC Brachytherapy Seed Registry. Consequently, the AAPM has prepared this supplement to the 2004 AAPM TG-43 update. This paper presents the AAPM-approved consensus datasets for these sources, and includes the following 125I sources: Amersham model 6733, Draximage model LS-1, Implant Sciences model 3500, IBt model 1251L, IsoAid model IAI-125A, Mentor model SL-125/ SH-125, and SourceTech Medical model STM1251. The Best Medical model 2335 103Pd source is also included. While the methodology used to determine these data sets is identical to that published in the AAPM TG-43U1 report, additional information and discussion are presented here on some questions that arose since the publication of the TG-43U1 report. Specifically, details of interpolation and extrapolation methods are described further, new methodologies are recommended, and example calculations are provided. Despite these changes, additions, and clarifications, the overall methodology, the procedures for developing consensus data sets, and the dose calculation formalism largely remain the same as in the TG-43U1 report. Thus, the AAPM recommends that the consensus data sets and resultant source-specific dose-rate distributions included in this supplement be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Adoption of these recommendations may result in changes to patient dose calculations, and these changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to implementation of the current protocol.

This report addresses uncertainties pertaining to brachytherapy single-source dosimetry preceding clinical use. The International Organization for Standardization ͑ISO͒ Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement ͑GUM͒ and the National Institute of Standards and Technology ͑NIST͒ Technical Note 1297 are taken as reference standards for uncertainty formalism. Uncertainties in using detectors to measure or utilizing Monte Carlo methods to estimate brachytherapy dose distributions are provided with discussion of the components intrinsic to the overall dosimetric assessment. Uncertainties provided are based on published observations and cited when available. The uncertainty propagation from the primary calibration standard through transfer to the clinic for air-kerma strength is covered first. Uncertainties in each of the brachytherapy dosimetry parameters of the TG-43 formalism are then explored, ending with transfer to the clinic and recommended approaches. Dosimetric uncertainties during treatment delivery are considered briefly but are not included in the detailed analysis. For low-and high-energy brachytherapy sources of low dose rate and high dose rate, a combined dosimetric uncertainty Ͻ5% ͑k =1͒ is estimated, which is consistent with prior literature estimates. Recommendations are provided for clinical medical physicists, dosimetry investigators, and source and treatment planning system manufacturers. These recommendations include the use of the GUM and NIST reports, a requirement of constancy of manufacturer source design, dosimetry investigator guidelines, provision of the lowest uncertainty for patient treatment dosimetry, and the establishment of an action level based on dosimetric uncertainty. These recommendations reflect the guidance of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine ͑AAPM͒ and the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology ͑GEC-ESTRO͒ for their members and may also be used as guidance to manufacturers and regulatory agencies in developing good manufacturing practices for sources used in routine clinical treatments.

Radiochromic film (RCF) is attractive as a thin, high resolution, 2D planar dosimeter. We have studied the uniformity, linearity, and reproducibility of a commercially supplied RCF system (model MD-55). Forty 12 cm long strips of RCF were exposed to uniform doses of 6 MV x rays. Optical density (OD) distributions were measured by a helium-neon scanning laser (633 nm) 2D densitometer and also with a manual densitometer. All film strips showed 8%-15% variations in OD values independent of densitometry technique which are evidently due to nonuniform dispersal of the sensor medium. A double exposure technique was developed to solve this problem. The film is first exposed to a uniform beam, which defines a pixel-by-pixel nonuniformity correction matrix. The film is then exposed to the unknown dose distribution, rescanned, and the net OD at each pixel corrected for nonuniformity. The double exposure technique reduces OD/unit dose variation to a 2%-5% random fluctuation. RCF response was found to deviate significantly from linearity at low doses (40% change in net OD/Gy from 1 to 30 Gy); a finding not previously reported. To study the tradeoff between statistical noise and spatial resolution, OD was averaged over blocks of adjacent 50 microns pixels (ranging from 1 x 1 to 10 x 10 pixels). Reproducibility, defined as the standard deviation of repeated single-pixel measurements on separate film pieces, was 2% at 30 Gy for a resolution of 0.25 mm. With careful correction for nonlinearity and nonuniformity, RCF is a promising quantitative 2D dosimeter for radiation oncology applications.

There is a new radiochromic film, a highly uniform, thin (100-microns) detector whose sensitive layer (6 microns thick) changes from colorless to blue by dye polymerization without processing, upon exposure to ionizing radiation. Because the dose gradients around brachytherapy sources are steep, the high spatial resolution offered by film dosimetry is an advantage over other detectors such as thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). This compares the photon energy dependence of the sensitivities of GafChromic film, silver halide verification film (Kodak X-Omat V Film), and lithium fluoride TLDs (Harshaw), over the photon energy range 28 keV to 1.7 MeV, which is of interest in brachytherapy. Sensitivity of the radiochromic film is observed to decrease by about 30% as effective photon energy decreases from 1710 keV (4-MV x rays) to 28 keV (60-kV x rays, 2-mm A1 filter). In contrast, the sensitivity of verification film increases by 980% and that of LiF TLDs increases by 41%. The variation of the sensitivity of radiochromic film with photon energy is considerably less than that for silver halide film and similar to that for LiF TLDs, but in the opposite direction. Radiochromic film, like LIF TLDs, does not exhibit the drastic sensitivity changes below 127 keV that silver halide film exhibits. Dose distribution in the immediate vicinity of a high activity (370 GBq) brachytherapy 192Ir source has been mapped using radiochromic film and is presented to illustrate the applicability of this new technology to brachytherapy dosimetry.