There is an acknowledged need for the design and implementation of physical phantoms appropriate for the experimental validation of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCA) introduced recently in Ir brachytherapy treatment planning systems (TPS), and this work investigates whether it can be met. A PMMA phantom was prepared to accommodate material inhomogeneities (air and Teflon), four plastic brachytherapy catheters, as well as 84 LiF TLD dosimeters (MTS-100M 1  ×  1  ×  1 mm microcubes), two radiochromic films (Gafchromic EBT3) and a plastic 3D dosimeter (PRESAGE). An irradiation plan consisting of 53 source dwell positions was prepared on phantom CT images using a commercially available TPS and taking into account the calibration dose range of each detector. Irradiation was performed using an Ir high dose rate (HDR) source. Dose to medium in medium, [Formula: see text], was calculated using the MBDCA option of the same TPS as well as Monte Carlo (MC) simulation with the MCNP code and a benchmarked methodology. Measured and calculated dose distributions were spatially registered and compared. The total standard (k  =  1) spatial uncertainties for TLD, film and PRESAGE were: 0.71, 1.58 and 2.55 mm. Corresponding percentage total dosimetric uncertainties were: 5.4-6.4, 2.5-6.4 and 4.85, owing mainly to the absorbed dose sensitivity correction and the relative energy dependence correction (position dependent) for TLD, the film sensitivity calibration (dose dependent) and the dependencies of PRESAGE sensitivity. Results imply a LiF over-response due to a relative intrinsic energy dependence betweenIr and megavoltage calibration energies, and a dose rate dependence of PRESAGE sensitivity at low dose rates (<1 Gy min). Calculations were experimentally validated within uncertainties except for MBDCA results for points in the phantom periphery and dose levels <20%. Experimental MBDCA validation is laborious, yet feasible. Further work is required for the full characterization of dosimeter response for Ir and the reduction of experimental uncertainties.

This work presents BrachyGuide, a brachytherapy‐dedicated software tool for the automatic preparation of input files for Monte Carlo simulation from treatment plans exported in DICOM RT format, and results of calculations performed for its benchmarking. Three plans were prepared using two computational models, the image series of a water sphere and a multicatheter breast brachytherapy patient, for each of two commercially available treatment planning systems: BrachyVision and Oncentra Brachy. One plan involved a single source dwell position of an 192Ir HDR source (VS2000 or mHDR‐v2) at the center of the water sphere using the TG43 algorithm, and the other two corresponded to the TG43 and advanced dose calculation algorithm for the multicatheter breast brachytherapy patient. Monte Carlo input files were prepared using BrachyGuide and simulations were performed with MCNP v.6.1. For the TG43 patient plans, the Monte Carlo computational model was manually edited in the prepared input files to resemble TG43 dosimetry assumptions. Hence all DICOM RT dose exports were equivalent to corresponding simulation results and their comparison was used for benchmarking the use of BrachyGuide. Monte Carlo simulation results and corresponding DICOM RT dose exports agree within type A uncertainties in the majority of points in the computational models. Treatment planning system, algorithm, and source specific differences greater than type A uncertainties were also observed, but these were explained by treatment planning system‐related issues and other sources of type B uncertainty. These differences have to be taken into account in commissioning procedures of brachytherapy dosimetry algorithms. BrachyGuide is accurate and effective for use in the preparation of commissioning tests for new brachytherapy dosimetry algorithms as a user‐oriented commissioning tool and the expedition of retrospective patient cohort studies of dosimetry planning.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Jw, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.55.K‐

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract