Dosimetric characterization of round HDR  AccuBoost applicators for breast brachytherapy

Rivard, Mark J.; Melhus, Christopher S.; Wazer, David E.; Bricault, Raymond J.

doi:10.1118/1.3232001

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their 2009 article describing experimental validation of the MC modeling of D-shaped AccuBoost applicators, Yang and Rivard (4) used a model 23343 Markus chamber for their absolute dose measurements using an N D,W ADCL factor for 60 Co, with acceptable results. This was further corroborated by Rivard et al (5) for the round applicators. A discussion with the authors confirmed that they used a 60 Co N D,W factor without attempting to establish a k Q factor for 192 Ir, and they did not employ a phantom correction factor for the solid phantoms used.…”

Section: E Determination Of An Absolute Dose Measurement Methodssupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Treatment planning is accomplished using a nomogram based on Monte Carlo (MC) modeling developed by Rivard et al (M.J. Rivard, personal correspondence via email, April 2013), which determines dwell times and position to deliver a given dose at the midplane of the compressed breast. While confirmatory measurements were performed by Yang and Rivard (4) and Rivard et al, (5) we are not aware of any published or independent recommendations for clinical commissioning of the AccuBoost system. We therefore conducted an extensive set of commissioning measurements in our clinic to validate the performance for the treatment delivery components of the AccuBoost system prior to clinical use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commissioning and quality assurance for the treatment delivery components of the AccuBoost system

Iftimia

Talmadge

Ladd

et al. 2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective for this work was to develop a commissioning methodology for the treatment delivery components of the AccuBoost system, as well as to establish a routine quality assurance program and appropriate guidance for clinical use based on the commissioning results. Various tests were developed: 1) assessment of the accuracy of the displayed separation value; 2) validation of the dwell positions within each applicator; 3) assessment of the accuracy and precision of the applicator localization system; 4) assessment of the combined dose profile of two opposed applicators to confirm that they are coaxial; 5) measurement of the absolute dose delivered with each applicator to confirm acceptable agreement with dose based on Monte Carlo modeling; 6) measurements of the skin‐to‐center dose ratio using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters; and 7) assessment of the mammopad cushion's effect on the center dose. We found that the difference between the measured and the actual paddle separation is <0.1 cm for the separation range of 3 cm to 7.5 cm. Radiochromic film measurements demonstrated that the number of dwell positions inside the applicators agree with the values from the vendor, for each applicator type and size. The shift needed for a good applicator‐grid alignment was within 0.2 cm. The dry‐run test using film demonstrated that the shift of the dosimetric center is within 0.15 cm. Dose measurements in water converted to polystyrene agreed within 5.0% with the Monte Carlo data in polystyrene for the same applicator type, size, and depth. A solid water‐to‐water (phantom) factor was obtained for each applicator, and all future annual quality assurance tests will be performed in solid water using an average value of 1.07 for the solid water‐to‐water factor. The skin‐to‐center dose ratio measurements support the Monte Carlo‐based values within 5.0% agreement. For the treatment separation range of 4 cm to 8 cm, the change in center dose would be <1.0% for all applicators when using a compressed pad of 0.2 cm to 0.3 cm. The tests performed ensured that all treatment components of the AccuBoost system are functional and that a treatment plan can be delivered with acceptable accuracy. Based on the commissioning results, a quality assurance manual and guidance documents for clinical use were developed.PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Da, 87.90.+y

show abstract

Section: E Determination Of An Absolute Dose Measurement Methodssupporting

confidence: 67%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commissioning and quality assurance for the treatment delivery components of the AccuBoost system

Iftimia

Talmadge

Ladd

et al. 2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AccuBoost ® procedures use an HDR Ir-192 source in this applicator to deliver radiation to breast lesions (Rivard et al, 2009). To minimize the anisotropy of an HDR source, the applicator positions the source’s long axis normal to the applicator’s central axis (Nath et al, 1995, 1997).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimetry for High Dose Rate Brachytherapy

Tien¹,

Ebeling²,

Hiatt³

et al. 2012

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The objective was to determine whether optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs) were appropriate for in vivo measurements in high dose rate brachytherapy. In order to make this distinction, three dosimetric characteristics were tested: dose linearity, dose rate dependence, and angular dependence. The Landauer nanoDot™ OSLDs were chosen due to their popularity and their availability commercially. Methods: To test the dose linearity, each OSLD was placed at a constant location and the dwell time was varied. Next, in order to test the dose rate dependence, each OSLD was placed at different OLSD-to-source distances and the dwell time was held constant. A curved geometry was created using a circular Accuboost® applicator in order to test angular dependence. Results: The OSLD response remained linear for high doses and was independent of dose rate. For doses up to 600 cGy, the linear coefficient of determination was 0.9988 with a response of 725 counts per cGy. The angular dependence was significant only in “edge-on” scenarios. Conclusion: OSLDs are conveniently read out using commercially available readers. OSLDs can be re-read and serve as a permanent record for clinical records or be annealed using conventional fluorescent light. Lastly, OSLDs are produced commercially for $5 each. Due to these convenient features, in conjunction with the dosimetric performance, OSLDs should be considered a clinically feasible and attractive tool for in vivo HDR brachytherapy measurements.

show abstract

“…MC simulations were performed using the MCNP5 radiation transport code ͑v 1.40͒ for eight conical applicators to complement previous simulations performed for the round applicators using identical methods. 2 The reader is referred to work by Yang and Rivard and Rivard et al for specifics on the MC methods. 1,2,4 As modeled in the MC environment, cross-sectional views of the 6C19 and 6C25 conical applicators are shown in Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The AccuBoost ͑Advanced Radiation Therapy LLC, Tyngsboro, MA͒ D-shaped and round applicators have been dosimetrically characterized by Yang and Rivard 1 and by Rivard et al 2 in 2009. Both applicator types are used as an alternative to conventional electron beam breast boost irradiation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment planning of a skin‐sparing conical breast brachytherapy applicator using conventional brachytherapy software

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dosimetric characterization of round HDR AccuBoost applicators for breast brachytherapy

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

Commissioning and quality assurance for the treatment delivery components of the AccuBoost system

Commissioning and quality assurance for the treatment delivery components of the AccuBoost system

Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimetry for High Dose Rate Brachytherapy

Treatment planning of a skin‐sparing conical breast brachytherapy applicator using conventional brachytherapy software

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About