Monte Carlo characterization of an ytterbium‐169 high dose rate brachytherapy source with analysis of statistical uncertainty

Medich, David C.; Tries, Mark A.; Munro, John J.

doi:10.1118/1.2147767

Cited by 72 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Medich et al [21] reasoning, photon emission intensity uncertainty vanishes from these equations. In this way, total relative uncertainty for the four previous quantities has been obtained using their respective expressions and results from equations (5) and (6).…”

Section: Uncertainty Analysismentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric characterization of an 192Ir brachytherapy source with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE

Casado¹,

García-Pareja²,

Cenizo³

et al. 2010

Physica Medica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Uncertainty Analysismentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Regarding to cross section uncertainties, we have followed the procedure published in similar works [20,21]. Cullen et al [15] estimate the uncertainty associated with photoelectric effect cross section in the EPDL97 library to be 2%, while Hubbell [22] suggests taking this value for the uncertainty of the total cross section.…”

Section: Uncertainty Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Dosimetric characterization of an 192Ir brachytherapy source with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE

Casado¹,

García-Pareja²,

Cenizo³

et al. 2010

Physica Medica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[17] The photon energy spectra of 169 Yb and 192 Ir needed for the Monte Carlo calculations were taken from literature. [1718] For the 60 Co source, two gamma lines 1.17 MeV and 1.33 MeV were considered. For the 137 Cs source, a photon of energy 0.662 MeV was used.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monte carlo calculation of beam quality and phantom scatter corrections for lithium formate electron paramagnetic resonance dosimeter for high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry

Mishra

Selvam

2017

J Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To investigate beam quality correction, KQQ0 (r) and phantom scatter correction, Kphan (r) for lithium formate dosimeter as a function of distance r along the transverse axis of the high-energy brachytherapy sources 60Co, 137Cs, 192Ir and 169Yb using the Monte Carlo-based EGSnrc code system.Materials and Methods:The brachytherapy sources investigated in this study are BEBIG High Dose Rate (HDR) 60Co (model Co0.A86), 137Cs (model RTR), HDR 192Ir (model Microselectron) and HDR 169Yb (model 4140). The solid phantom materials investigated are PMMA, polystyrene, solid water, virtual water, plastic water, RW1, RW3, A150 and WE210.Result:KQQ0 (r) is about unity and distance independent fo 60Co, 137Cs and 192Ir brachytherapy sources, whereas for the 169Yb source, KQQ0 (r) increases gradually to about 4 % larger than unity at a distance of 15 cm along the transverse axis of the source. For 60Co source, phantoms such as polystyrene, plastic water, solid water, virtual water, RW1, RW3 and WE210 are water-equivalent but PMMA and A150 phantoms show distance-dependent Kphan (r) values. For 137Cs and 192Ir sources, phantoms such as solid water, virtual water, RW1, RW3 and WE210 are water-equivalent. However, phantoms such as PMMA, plastic water, polystyrene and A150 showed distance-dependent Kphan (r) values, for these sources. For 169Yb source, all the investigated phantoms show distance-dependent Kphan (r) values.Conclusion:KQQ0 (r) is about unity and distance independent for 60Co, 137Cs and 192Ir brachytherapy sources. Phantoms such as solid water, virtual water, RW1, RW3 and WE210 are water-equivalent for 60Co, 137Cs and 192Ir brachytherapy sources. For 169Yb source, all the investigated phantoms show distance-dependent Kphan (r) values.

show abstract

“…Some authors may add supplementary data points for r < 10 cm [21, 22] or at larger distances such as r = 12 cm or r = 15 cm [13–16]. In case of F ( r , θ ), the typical spatial resolution for θ is 0°-5° (in 1° steps), 5°-10° (in 2° steps), 10°-30° (in 5° steps), 30°-90° (in 10° steps) with the same possibility of supplementary angles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In case of F ( r , θ ), the typical spatial resolution for θ is 0°-5° (in 1° steps), 5°-10° (in 2° steps), 10°-30° (in 5° steps), 30°-90° (in 10° steps) with the same possibility of supplementary angles. In some studies of high-energy sources, lower angular resolutions were used such as 10° near the source longitudinal-axis [21, 22]. For the four sources examined, the published g L ( r ) and F ( r , θ ) tables used the typical mesh as previously indicated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physics Contributions Evaluation of interpolation methods for TG-43 dosimetric parameters based on comparison with Monte Carlo data for high-energy brachytherapy sources

Pujades-Claumarchirant

Granero

Pérez-Calatayud

et al. 2010

jcb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this work was to determine dose distributions for high-energy brachytherapy sources at spatial locations not included in the radial dose function gL(r) and 2D anisotropy function F(r,θ) table entries for radial distance r and polar angle θ. The objectives of this study are as follows: 1) to evaluate interpolation methods in order to accurately derive gL(r) and F(r,θ) from the reported data; 2) to determine the minimum number of entries in gL(r) and F(r,θ) that allow reproduction of dose distributions with sufficient accuracy.Material and methodsFour high-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources were studied: 60Co model Co0.A86, 137Cs model CSM-3, 192Ir model Ir2.A85-2, and 169Yb hypothetical model. The mesh used for r was: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2–8 (integer steps) and 10 cm. Four different angular steps were evaluated for F(r,θ): 1°, 2°, 5° and 10°. Linear-linear and logarithmic-linear interpolation was evaluated for gL(r). Linear-linear interpolation was used to obtain F(r,θ) with resolution of 0.05 cm and 1°. Results were compared with values obtained from the Monte Carlo (MC) calculations for the four sources with the same grid.ResultsLinear interpolation of g L(r) provided differences ≤ 0.5% compared to MC for all four sources. Bilinear interpolation of F(r,θ) using 1° and 2° angular steps resulted in agreement ≤ 0.5% with MC for 60Co, 192Ir, and 169Yb, while 137Cs agreement was ≤ 1.5% for θ < 15°.ConclusionsThe radial mesh studied was adequate for interpolating gL(r) for high-energy brachytherapy sources, and was similar to commonly found examples in the published literature. For F(r,θ) close to the source longitudinal-axis, polar angle step sizes of 1°-2° were sufficient to provide 2% accuracy for all sources.

show abstract

Monte Carlo characterization of an ytterbium‐169 high dose rate brachytherapy source with analysis of statistical uncertainty

Cited by 72 publications

References 22 publications

Dosimetric characterization of an 192Ir brachytherapy source with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE

Dosimetric characterization of an 192Ir brachytherapy source with the Monte Carlo code PENELOPE

Monte carlo calculation of beam quality and phantom scatter corrections for lithium formate electron paramagnetic resonance dosimeter for high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry

Physics Contributions Evaluation of interpolation methods for TG-43 dosimetric parameters based on comparison with Monte Carlo data for high-energy brachytherapy sources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About