Dose Calculation for Photon-Emitting Brachytherapy Sources ...Radiotherapy Department, La Fe Polythecnic and University Hospital, Valencia 46026, Spain Facundo Ballester Department

Dose Calculation for Photon-Emitting Brachytherapy Sources

with Average Energy Higher than 50 keV: Full Report of the AAPM and ESTRO

Report of the

High Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry (HEBD) Working Group

August 2012

DISCLAIMER: This publication is based on sources and information believed to be reliable, but the AAPM, the authors, and the editors disclaim any warranty or liability based on or relating to the contents of this publication.

The AAPM does not endorse any products, manufacturers, or suppliers. Nothing in this publication should be inter-preted as implying such endorsement.

2012 by American Association of Physicists in Medicine

This page intentionally left blank.

Corrigenda

Errata sheet listing chronologically the changes in the report. Please, check it often to verify that you have an updated version of the report.

Date Change Comments

September 25 2012

Data for the IPL Cs-137 source. Tables XLVIII and XLIX have been corrected.

A typographical error was detected in the F(r,θ) table of the EPAPS Document No. E-MEDPHYSA6-3605910 in the EXCEL spreadsheet format. Table IV of the paper presents F(r,θ) values for r = …, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, .. (Correct ones) while the spreadsheet contains data for r = …, 1, 1.25, 2, 2.5, 4, .. Consequently, the r values in the spreadsheet have been modified to match those given in Table IV of the original reference. The QA table calculated using the incorrect F(r,θ) has been updated. Authors of the original publication have submitted an erratum to the journal.

January 2016 Page 14 text Changed text at the bottom of the page to read “...using linearextrapolation in r for fixed polar angle based on the last two tabulated values, and use zeroth order (nearest neighbor) extrapolation for r < rmin.”

Pages 38 & 39 links Updated the two hyperlinks to ESTRO and Carleton U. websites.

Page 50, Table 4, Changed the equation in column 3 heading to:column 3 heading

Page 53, Fig. 3 Updated the graphic for the Nucletron HDR.

0 0/ ( , )CON LG r θΛ

DISCLAIMER: This publication is based on sources and information believed to be reliable, but the AAPM, the authors, and the publisher disclaim any warranty or liability

based on or relating to the contents of this publication.

The AAPM does not endorse any products, manufacturers, or suppliers. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as implying such endorsement.

ISBN: 978-1-936366-17-0 ISSN: 0271-7344

© 2012 by American Association of Physicists in Medicine

All rights reserved.

Published by American Association of Physicists in Medicine

One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3846

iii

HEBD Working Group Jose Perez-Calatayud (Chair) Radiotherapy Department, La Fe Polythecnic and University Hospital, Valencia 46026, Spain Facundo Ballester Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics, University of Valencia, Burjassot 46100, Spain Rupak K. Das Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53792 Larry A. DeWerd Department of Medical Physics and Accredited Dosimetry and Calibration Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Geoffrey S. Ibbott Department of Radiation Physics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 Ali S. Meigooni Department of Radiation Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Zoubir Ouhib Radiation Oncology, Lynn Regional Cancer Center, Delray Beach, Florida 33484 Mark J. Rivard Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02111 Ron S. Sloboda Department of Medical Physics, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 1Z2 Canada Jeffrey F. Williamson Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23298

iv

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) on dose calculations for high-energy (average energy higher than 50 keV) photon-emitting brachytherapy sources are presented, including the physical characteristics of specific 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co source models. Methods: This report has been prepared by the High Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry (HEBD) Working Group. This report includes considerations in the application of the TG-43U1 formalism to high-energy photon-emitting sources with particular attention to phantom size effects, interpolation accuracy dependence on dose calculation grid size, and dosimetry parameter dependence on source active length. Results: Consensus datasets for commercially available high-energy photon sources are provided, along with recommended methods for evaluating these datasets. Recommendations on dosimetry characterization methods, mainly using experimental procedures and Monte Carlo, are established and discussed. Also included are methodological recommendations on detector choice, detector energy response characterization and phantom materials, and measurement specification methodology. Uncertainty analyses are discussed and recommendations for high-energy sources without consensus datasets are given. Conclusions: 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. Keywords: brachytherapy, TG-43 formalism, high-energy brachytherapy sources, Monte Carlo, experimental dosimetry, quality assurance.

v

CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES .................................................................................... 4

II.A. 192Ir............................................................................................................................... 5

II.B. 137Cs ............................................................................................................................. 6

II.C. 60Co .............................................................................................................................. 6

III. CONSIDERATIONS APPLYING THE TG-43U1 FORMALISM TO HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES ... 7

III.A. Phantom size effects.................................................................................................. 8

III.B. Dose calculation grid size and interpolation accuracy............................................ 12

III.C. Dosimetry parameter dependence on active length................................................. 15

IV. CONSENSUS DATASET METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 20

IV.A. Dose rate constant ..................................................................................................... 23

IV.B. Radial dose function.................................................................................................. 23

IV.C. 2D anisotropy function ............................................................................................. 23

V. RECOMMENDATIONS ON DOSIMETRY CHARACTERIZATION METHODS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES .................................................................................... 24

V.A. Preparation of dosimetry parameters ........................................................................ 24

V.A.1. Air-kerma strength.......................................................................................... 25

V.A.2. Dose rate constant........................................................................................... 25

V.A.3. Radial dose function ....................................................................................... 25

V.A.4. 2D anisotropy function................................................................................... 26

V.B. Reference data and conditions for brachytherapy dosimetry................................... 26

V.B.1. Radionuclide data ........................................................................................... 26

V.B.2. Reference media.............................................................................................. 26

vi

V.C. Methodological recommendations for experimental dosimetry .............................. 26

V.C.1. Detector choice ............................................................................................... 26

V.C.2. Phantom material and energy response characterization ............................. 28

V.C.3. Specification of measurement methods......................................................... 30

V.D. Methodological recommendations for Monte Carlo–based dosimetry................... 30

V.D.1. Specification of Monte Carlo calculation methods ...................................... 31

V.D.2. Good practice for Monte Carlo calculations ................................................. 31

V.E. Uncertainty analyses................................................................................................... 33

V.F. Publication of dosimetry results................................................................................. 34

V.G. The role of non–Monte Carlo computational tools in reference dosimetry............ 34

VI. RECOMMENDED DOSIMETRY DATASETS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES .......................................... 37

VI.A. AAPM-RPC Source Registry................................................................................... 37

VI.B. Consensus datasets .................................................................................................... 39

VI.B.1. HDR 192Ir sources .......................................................................................... 39

VI.B.2. PDR 192Ir sources ........................................................................................... 39

VI.B.3. LDR 192Ir sources........................................................................................... 40

VI.B.4. LDR 137Cs sources ......................................................................................... 40

VI.B.5. HDR 60Co sources.......................................................................................... 40

VI.C. Reference overview of sources without consensus datasets................................... 40

NOMENCLATURE...................................................................................................................... 41 APPENDIX A: Detailed Recommended Dosimetry Datasets for High-Energy Photon-Emitting Brachytherapy Sources .................................................... 45

A.1 High Dose Rate 192Ir sources ....................................................................................... 46

A.1.1 mHDR-v1 (Nucletron) ..................................................................................... 46

A.1.2 mHDR-v2 (Nucletron) ..................................................................................... 52

A.1.3 VS2000 (Varian Medical Systems) ................................................................. 57

A.1.4. Buchler (E&Z BEBIG) ................................................................................... 60

A.1.5. GammaMed HDR 12i (Varian Medical Systems)......................................... 63

A.1.6. GammaMed HDR Plus (Varian Medical Systems)....................................... 66

vii

A.1.7. GI192M11 (E&Z BEBIG) .............................................................................. 69

A.1.8. Ir2.A85-2 (E&Z BEBIG)................................................................................. 73

A.1.9. M-19 (Source Production and Equipment)..................................................... 75

A.1.10. Flexisource (Isodose Control)........................................................................ 79

A.2 Pulsed Dose Rate 192Ir sources..................................................................................... 81

A.2.1. GammaMed PDR 12i (Varian Medical Systems) ......................................... 81

A.2.2. GammaMed PDR Plus (Varian Medical Systems) ....................................... 85

A.2.3. mPDR-v1 (Nucletron) ..................................................................................... 88

A.2.4. Ir2.A85-1 (E&Z BEBIG) ................................................................................ 91

A.3. Low Dose Rate 192Ir sources ....................................................................................... 94

A.3.1. Steel clad 192Ir seed (Best Industries) ............................................................. 94

A.3.2. LDR 192Ir wires (E&Z BEBIG)....................................................................... 98

A.4. 137Cs sources ............................................................................................................... 102

A.4.1. CSM3 (E&Z BEBIG)...................................................................................... 102

A.4.2. IPL (Radiation Products Design).................................................................... 106

A.4.3. CSM11 (E&Z BEBIG).................................................................................... 109

A.5. High Dose Rate 60Co sources ..................................................................................... 112

A.5.1. GK60M21 (E&Z BEBIG)............................................................................... 112

A.5.2. Co0.A86 (E&Z BEBIG).................................................................................. 115

APPENDIX B: References for High-Energy Sources Not Commercially Available and Without Consensus Datasets .................................................................. 119

B.1 LDR-HDR-PDR 192Ir.................................................................................................... 119

B.2 LDR 137Cs...................................................................................................................... 120

B.3 HDR 60Co ...................................................................................................................... 124 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 125

viii

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Reference polar coordinate system for high-energy photon-emitting sources

adapted from the 1995 TG-43 report. ............................................................................ 45 2. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Nucletron mHDR-v1 source.[47]..................... 46 3. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source.[93]..................... 53 4. Material and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems VS2000 source.[170]. 58 5. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG HDR 192Ir Buchler

model G0814 source.[64] .................................................................................................. 61 6. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed

HDR 12i source.[65].......................................................................................................... 64 7. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed

HDR Plus source.[65] ........................................................................................................ 67 8. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG HDR model GI192M11

source.[71] .......................................................................................................................... 69 9. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG HDR model Ir2.A85-2

source.[174]......................................................................................................................... 73 10. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Source Production and Equipment M-19

source.[5] ........................................................................................................................... 75 11. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Isodose Control Flexisource.[175].................... 79 12. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed

PDR 12i source.[69] .......................................................................................................... 82 13. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed

PDR Plus source.[69] ........................................................................................................ 85 14. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Nucletron mPDR-v1 source.[55] ..................... 88 15. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG Ir2.A85-1 source.[174] ............... 92 16. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Best Medical model 81-01 192Ir seed.[46]

Drawing is not to scale.................................................................................................... 95 17. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG LDR 192Ir wire.[82]

Plot is not to scale. .......................................................................................................... 98

ix

18. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG model CSM3 source.[141] ......... 102 19. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Radiation Products Design model

67-6520 137Cs source.[193] The source tip is on the side of the aluminum ring. ........... 106 20. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG CSM11 source.[62] .................... 109 21. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG model GK60M21 source.[11].... 112 22. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG model Co0.A86 source.[12] ...... 116

LIST OF TABLES I. Physical properties of radionuclides considered in this report. Data have

been taken from the NNDC.[20] Mean photon energy values are calculated with a cutoff of = 10 keV. Data on Auger and internal conversion (IC) electrons are not included.......................................................................................... 5

II. Polynomial coefficients of the correction factors (CF) used to quantitatively

compare bounded to unbounded radial dose functions for common phantom shapes and sizes. CF was fitted as CF = C0 + C1 r + C2 r

2 + C3 r3 + C4 r

4.[29] These coefficients have been obtained by D. Granero (private communication) in a re-evaluation of their study which takes into account that with the coefficients in the original publication, g(r = 1 cm) was not exactly one.............. 11

III. Interpolation and extrapolation recommendations for high-energy (low-energy)[3]

brachytherapy sources for the line-source approximation. ..................................... 12 IV. Dose rate constant for HDR 192Ir sources. ................................................................ 50

V. Radial dose function values for HDR sources. Interpolated/extrapolated data are boldface/underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. In [brackets] are the corrected values from bounded to unbounded geometry. ........................... 50

VI. F(r, ) for the Nucletron mHDR-v1 source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 51 VII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Nucletron mHDR-v1 source. Values

inside the source are in italics ................................................................................... 52 VIII. F(r, ) for the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 55

x

IX. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source. Values inside the source are in italics. .................................................................................. 57

X. F(r, ) for the Varian Medical Systems VS2000 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics ............................................ 59 XI. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Varian Medical Systems VS2000

source. Values inside the source are in italics ......................................................... 60 XII. F(r, ) for the Buchler model G0814 source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 62 XIII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Buchler model G0814 source.

Values inside the source are in italics ...................................................................... 63 XIV. F(r, ) for the GammaMed HDR 12i source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics ...................................................................... 65 XV. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the GammaMed HDR 12i source.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 66 XVI. F(r, ) for the GammaMed HDR Plus source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics ...................................................................... 67 XVII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the GammaMed HDR Plus source.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 69 XVIII. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG model GI192M11 source. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................................................. 71 XIX. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG model GI192M11

source. Values inside the source are in italics. ........................................................ 72 XX. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG model Ir2.A85-2 source. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................................................. 74 XXI. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG model Ir2.A85-2 source.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 75 XXII. F(r, ) for the SPEC In. Co. model M-19 source. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics .................................................. 77 XXIII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the SPEC In. Co. model M-19 source.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 78

xi

XXIV. F(r, ) for the Isodose Control model Flexisource. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................................................. 80

XXV. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Isodose Control model Flexisource.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 81 XXVI. Dose rate constant for PDR sources. ........................................................................ 83 XXVII. Radial dose function values for PDR sources. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. In [brackets] are the corrected values from bounded to unbounded geometry. ....................................... 83

XXVIII. F(r, ) for the GammaMed PDR 12i source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 84 XXIX. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the GammaMed PDR 12i source.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 85 XXX. F(r, ) for the GammaMed PDR Plus source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 87 XXXI. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the GammaMed PDR Plus source.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 88 XXXII. F(r, ) for the Nucletron mPDR-v1 source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 90 XXXIII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Nucletron mPDR-v1 source. Values

inside the source are in italics. .................................................................................. 91 XXXIV. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG PDR-Ir2.A85-1 model. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................................................. 93 XXXV. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG PDR Ir2.A85-1

source. Values inside the source are in italics. ........................................................ 94 XXXVI. Dose rate constant for different LDR 192Ir sources .................................................. 96 XXXVII. Radial dose function values for LDR 192Ir sources. Extrapolated data

are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ........................................... 97 XXXVIII. F(r, ) for the Best Industries model 81-01192Ir seed. Extrapolated data

are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ........................................... 97 XXXIX. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Best Industries model 81-01192Ir

seed. Values inside the source are in italics. ............................................................ 98

xii

XL. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG L = 0.5 cm wire length. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................................................. 99 XLI. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG L = 0.5 cm wire

length. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. 100 XLII. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG L = 1 cm wire length. Extrapolated data are

underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................................................. 101 XLIII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG L = 1 cm wire length.

Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined. ............. 101 XLIV. Dose rate constant of 137Cs sources........................................................................... 104 XLV. Radial dose function values for 137Cs LDR sources. Interpolated/extrapolated

data are boldface/underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. ................... 104 XLVI. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG CSM3 source. Values inside the source are

in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.............................................................. 105 XLVII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG CSM3 source.

Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated values are underlined. ......... 106 XLVIII. F(r, ) for the Radiation Products Design IPL source. Values inside the source

are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined........................................................ 108 XLIX. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the Radiation Products Design IPL

source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. 109 L. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG CSM11 source. Extrapolated data are underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics. ..................................................................... 110 LI. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG CSM11 source. Values

inside the source are in italics. .................................................................................. 111 LII. Radial dose function values for 60Co HDR sources. Values inside

the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined...................................... 113 LIII. Dose rate constant for HDR 60Co sources. ............................................................... 114 LIV. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co HDR GK60M21 source. Values inside the

source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined. ........................................... 114 LV. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co GK60M21

source. Values inside the source are in italics.......................................................... 115

xiii

LVI. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co HDR Co0.A86 source. Values inside the

source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined. ........................................... 117 LVII. QA away-along data [cGy·h–1·U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co Co0.A86 source.

Values inside the source are in italics....................................................................... 118

This page intentionally left blank.

High-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy dosimetry I. INTRODUCTION In 1995, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 (TG-43) published a clinical protocol on dosimetry for interstitial brachytherapy sources,[1] colloquially known as the “TG-43 formalism,” and provided reference dosimetry datasets for several designs of 192Ir, 125I, and 103Pd sources commercially available at the time. This report was instrumental in enhancing dose calculation accuracy and uniformity of clinical dosimetry practices for low-energy photon-emitting sources following general acceptance and implementation of the TG-43 dose calculation formalism by the brachytherapy vendor, treatment planning systems (TPS), and user communities. Development of the TG-43 methods in the area of low-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry, defined as sources emitting photons of average energy less than or equal to 50 keV, was carried out by the AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry (LEBD) Working Group. In response to the vastly increasing use of low-energy interstitial brachytherapy sources, especially for permanent prostate implants, and the increasing number and variable design of commercially available low-energy sources, LEBD continued to develop the TG-43 formalism and to prepare reference-quality AAPM consensus dosimetry datasets from published dosimetry papers. Most of the recent LEBD recommendations and advances in dosimetric characterization, recommended dose calculation methodologies, and data evaluation for low-energy interstitial brachytherapy, are summarized in two key reports: the 2004 update of the TG-43 report (TG-43U1)[2] and its 2007 supplement (TG-43U1S1).[3,4] In the field of high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry, the TG-186 report will provide guidance for early adopters of model-based dose calculation algorithms. The Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms (MBDCA) Working Group will develop a limited number of well-defined test case plans and perform MBDCA dose calculations and comparisons. However, there will remain for the foreseeable future a need for reference dosimetry data obtained in liquid water phantoms to evaluate the uniform clinical implementation and robustness of these advanced dose calculation algorithms. Many publications propose various dose-estimation methods and dosimetric parameters for specific high-energy brachytherapy sources (defined as photon-emitting sources with average photon energies exceeding 50 keV) including 192Ir, 137Cs, 60Co, and 198Au sources. Many new source designs, especially high dose rate (HDR) and pulsed dose rate (PDR) sources, have been introduced for use in remote-afterloading machines, while traditional low dose rate (LDR) sources such as 192Ir seeds in ribbons, 192Ir wires, and 137Cs tubes and spheres remain a mainstay for a number of brachytherapy applications. New brachytherapy radionuclides, such as 169Yb[5,6] and 170Tm,[7–9] are being actively investigated for application in HDR brachytherapy and should be discussed in the forthcoming TG-167 report. Also, new 60Co sources have been designed to be used with HDR afterloaders.[10–12] HDR remote afterloading units are generally replacing traditional LDR 192Ir and 137Cs sources for intracavitary and interstitial brachytherapy applications. This trend will continue as other new high-energy brachytherapy sources are developed. It is paramount that the computational and experimental tools used in investigations to evaluate single-source dose distributions, consensus dataset formation processes, and calibration processes, are able to support the level of dosimetric accuracy and precision

2 HEBD report required to safely and efficiently deliver brachytherapy to patients.[13,14] To ensure that these criteria are met, reference dosimetry datasets obtained from these investigations must be independently verified for accuracy and be readily available in a format accepted by commonly used planning systems. The AAPM has made recommendations on dose calculation formalisms and the choice of dosimetry datasets for brachytherapy sources in its TG-43,[1] TG-56,[13] and TG-59[15] reports. Currently the number of source models in clinical use is very large, and medical physicists have few resources to turn to for selecting the best dosimetry parameters for a given source model. The availability in tabular form of critically evaluated and complete consensus dosimetry datasets for all commonly used sources, for use with the updated TG-43 formalism, would be of substantial benefit to clinical end users. The AAPM has reviewed and published reference-quality dosimetry datasets for low-energy brachytherapy sources in the LEBD reports (TG-43,[1] TG-43U1,[2] and TG-43U1S1[3,4]). No similar effort has been attempted by AAPM or the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) for high-energy sources, nor have societal recommendations been made concerning appropriate methods for the acquisition and formation of such datasets. To fill this void, the AAPM Brachtherapy Subcommittee (BTSC) formed the High Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry (HEBD) Working Group to focus on photon-emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV. This group has the following charges:

1. To compile a list of high-energy brachytherapy sources commonly used in North America and Europe, for which the dosimetry datasets and guidelines recommended by HEBD will apply.

2. To develop dosimetric prerequisites for routine clinical use of high-energy brachytherapy sources similar in scope to the low-energy brachytherapy dosimetry prerequisites.[16]

3. To develop an extension of the TG-43 dose-calculation formalism that is applicable to elongated sources, i.e., with maximum linear dimensions that are large or comparable to typical calculation distances.

4. To provide consensus datasets for the sources defined in charge 1 above, using the currently acceptable dose calculation formalisms.

5. To perform a review of existing clinical source-strength calibration requirements and recommendations for high-energy (LDR/HDR/PDR) sources.

6. To provide a Brachytherapy Source Registry (BSR) for web-based access to high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry data that satisfy the prerequisites defined in charge 2.

The objective of this report is to fulfill charges 1 and 4. Charge 2 was addressed in the first publication of the group[7] developing a set of dosimetric prerequisites for routine clinical use of brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV. These broad recommendations form the basis of the more detailed recommendations provided by this report. Charge 3 has been adopted as the principal charge by the joint AAPM/ESTRO Task Group No. 143 on Dosimetric Evaluation of Elongated Photon Emitting Brachytherapy Sources. Charge 5 on high-energy source calibrations is in

High-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy dosimetry 3

progress for inclusion in a complementary report. Charge 6, to expand the BSR in an analogous manner as done for low-energy sources, is an on-going collaborative project involving the Radiological Physics Center (RPC), the AAPM BTSC and BSR Working Group, and the ESTRO BRAchytherapy PHYsics Quality assurance System (BRAPHYQS) subcommittee analogous to the BTSC. Specifically, the current report addresses the following:

1. Review the construction and available published dosimetry data for high-energy 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources that (i) continue in clinical use in North America or Europe and (ii) satisfy the AAPM’s dosimetric prerequisites[17] (charge 1).

2. Perform a critical review of the existing TG-43U1 formalism[2] as used heretofore mainly for low-energy brachytherapy sources. Extension of the TG-43 dose-calculation formalism was not performed as considered in charge 3.

3. Critically review published dosimetric data for each of the prerequisite-compliant source models listed in 1., and develop a complete consensus dataset to support clinical planning for each source model (charge 4).

4. Develop guidelines for investigators on the use of computational and experimental dosimetry for determination of high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry parameters.

The recommendations included herein reflect the guidance of the AAPM and the ESTRO for brachytherapy users, and may also be used as guidance to vendors in developing good manufacturing practices for sources used in routine clinical treatments. Certain materials and commercial products are identified in this report in order to facilitate discussion and methodology description. Such identification does not imply recommendation nor endorsement by any of the professional organizations or the authors, nor does it imply that the materials or products identified are necessarily the best available for these purposes.

4 HEBD report II. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-

EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES The photon-emitting brachytherapy sources included in this report have average energies exceeding 50 keV. Only sources intended for conventional clinical interstitial and intracavitary use were included; sources intended for intravascular brachytherapy are covered by AAPM task groups TG-60[18] and TG-149.[19] Similarly, electronic brachytherapy sources will be addressed by the AAPM task groups TG-167 and TG-182. The limit of 50 keV was established by the AAPM to separate high-energy sources from those addressed by the LEBD.[16] This report addresses brachytherapy source models that were commercially available as of January 2010. For sources that were commercially available, the goal was to generate consensus datasets in a format acceptable to commercial TPS. For sources that are in current clinical use but no longer manufactured, the scientific literature was reviewed and acceptable published datasets were identified. In a few cases, datasets were included for sources that are no longer in clinical use to assist in the retrospective calculation of dose distributions. The radionuclides considered in this report and described in this section are 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co. Their most important physical properties are presented in Table I; see the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC)[20] for a more complete description. Baltas et al.[21] also provides a clear description of these radionuclides. Detailed information on recommended photon spectra is provided in section V.D.1. 198Au (half-life 2.7 days) brachytherapy sources have been used extensively in the past for treatment of various tumors including gynecological, breast, prostate, head and neck, and other soft-tissue cancers. These sources were generally of low activity (typically mCi) and were in the form of seeds or “grains.” 198Au emits a wide spectrum of x-rays and gamma rays with an average energy of approximately 400 keV. The use of this radionuclide has decreased in recent years, perhaps because of the availability of competing radionuclides. These include 125I (half-life 59.4 days) and 103Pd (half-life 17.0 days), both of which have longer half-lives, making shipment and scheduling of treatments more convenient, and lower photon energies, leading to more acceptable radiation safety characteristics than 198Au. Vicini et al.[22] conducted a survey of 178 publications reporting on prostate brachytherapy between 1985 and 1998. They found that 198Au had not been used for monotherapy according to these studies, and had been used in combined modality therapy only in 11% of cases. Correspondingly, they found that 125I and 103Pd were used far more frequently. Yaes[23] showed that, regardless of treatment site, the heterogeneity of the dose distributions from 198Au could be greater than those from 125I and 103Pd. Similarly, Marsiglia et al.[24] reported that 198Au implants more often showed significant cold spots, and generally inferior dosimetric coverage, than did implants with other radionuclides. These reports, together with others reporting on comparisons with other radionuclides, have resulted in relatively infrequent use of 198Au. As a result, this report will not address 198Au brachytherapy sources.


Table I. Physical properties of radionuclides considered in this report. Data have been taken from the NNDC.[20] Mean photon energy values are calculated with a cutoff of = 10 keV.

Data on Auger and internal conversion (IC) electrons are not included.

192Ir 137Cs 60Co

Half-life 73.81 days 30.07 years 5.27 years

Type of disintegration – (95.1%), EC (4.9%)

– (100%) – (100%)

Maximum x-ray energy (keV) 78.6 37.5 8.3

Gamma energy-range (keV) 110.4 to 1378.2 661.6 1173.2 to 1332.5

Mean x-ray and gamma energy (keV) 350.0 613.0 1252.9

Maximum – ray energies (keV) 81.7 (0.103%) 258.7 (5.6%)

538.8 (41.43%) 675.1 (48.0%)

514.0 (94.4%) 1175.6 (5.6%)

318.2 (99.88%) 1491.4 (0.12%)

Mean – ray energy (keV) 180.7 188.4 96.5

Air kerma rate constant,

=10 keV (μGy m2 h–1 MBq–1) 0.1091 0.0771 0.3059

Specific activity (GBq mg-1) 341.0 3.202 41.91

II.A. 192Ir The 192Ir half-life of 73.81 days allows it to be easily used for temporary implants. Its high specific activity makes it practical to deliver sources of activities of as much as hundreds of GBq. 192Ir decays to several excited states of 192Pt via (95%) and 192Os via electron capture (EC) (5%), emitting on average 2.3 gamma rays per disintegration with a range of energies between 0.061 and

1.378 MeV and a mean energy of 0.355 MeV. The rays emitted have a maximum energy of 0.675 MeV and an average energy of 0.1807 MeV. 192Ir is produced from enriched 191Ir targets (37%

natural abundance) in a reactor by the (n, ) reaction, creating HDR 192Ir sources (typically 1 mm diameter by 3.5 mm length cylinders) with activities exceeding 4.4 TBq. HDR 192Ir sources are encapsulated in a thin titanium or stainless steel capsule and laser welded to the end of a flexible

wire. Electrons from decay are absorbed by the core and the capsule.[25–28]

6 HEBD report II.B. 137Cs The 137Cs half-life of 30.07 years enables use over a long period of time. Its low specific

activity makes it practical for LDR implants. 137Cs decays purely via , mainly (94.4%) to the second excited state of 137Ba, where the de-excitation to the ground state (90%) with emission of a

gamma ray of 0.662 MeV (absolute intensity 85.1%) is in competition with IC (10%). The rays

emitted have a maximum energy of 0.514 MeV. A second decay branch (5.6% probability) to the 137Ba ground state occurs, with maximum ray energy of 1.176 MeV. 137Cs is extracted from 235U fission products, with the 137Cs trapped in an inert matrix material such as gold, ceramic, or borosilicate glass. The sources are doubly encapsulated with a total of 0.5 mm thick stainless steel.

Electrons from decay are mainly absorbed by the core and the capsule.[28] Cylindrical source models commercially available are manufactured with 3 mm diameter and external lengths up to 21 mm. Spherical sources are made for use in remote-afterloading intracavitary brachytherapy devices.

II.C. 60Co The 60Co half-life of 5.27 years and its high specific activity make it practical for HDR brachytherapy implants. Newly designed HDR sources have been introduced in the market. 60Co

undergoes decay to the excited states of 60Ni (94.4%). De-excitation to the ground state occurs

mainly via emission of -rays of 1.173 MeV and 1.332 MeV, each with an absolute intensity of

nearly 100%. The main rays emitted (99.88%) have a maximum energy of 0.318 MeV and an average energy of 0.096 MeV. 60Co is produced through neutron capture by 59Co, but its long half-life requires long irradiation times for sufficient source strength. HDR 60Co sources have dimensions similar to those of 192Ir (section II.A). The low-energy electrons emitted by 60Co are easily absorbed by the cobalt source material or encapsulation layers, resulting in a “pure” photon source.[10,28]


III. CONSIDERATIONS APPLYING THE TG-43U1 FORMALISM TO HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES

The TG-43 formalism[1] was initially developed for use in interstitial brachytherapy including low-energy 125I and 103Pd seeds and high-energy 192Ir seeds in ribbons. In 2004, the AAPM TG-43U1 report[2] updated the formalism and provided data for several new models of low-energy seeds. The application of this formalism has subsequently been extended significantly by the brachytherapy physics community, making it the international benchmark for nearly all brachytherapy sources in brachytherapy dosimetry publications and brachytherapy TPS. The TG-43 formalism applied to low-energy sources has the following advantages:

1. Dosimetric modeling of seeds using the point-source approximation is facilitated by averaging dose anisotropy over all solid angles. This method of calculation is used primarily for permanent prostate brachytherapy where seed orientation is not discernible in clinical practice for non-stranded applications and due to the large number of seed orientations.

2. Accurate interpolation of the dose distribution is readily achieved because the geometric

dependence of dose falloff as a function of radial distance r and polar angle is accounted for. This allows the use of a limited dataset while providing for robust dose calculation.

3. An analytic, uniform approach to brachytherapy dose calculation is readily available, thereby promoting consistent clinical practice worldwide.

The TG-43 formalism[1,2] assumes a water medium with superposition of single source dose distributions, no inter-source attenuation (ISA) effects, and full scatter conditions (infinite or unbounded water medium) at dose calculation points-of-interest (POIs). Partial scatter conditions can potentially be accommodated through the use of appropriate correction factors.[29–32] This approximation of realistic clinical conditions is pertinent for both low-energy and high-energy brachytherapy applications, and is discussed in detail by Rivard et al.[33,34] Variable tissue composition has a greater influence on low-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry than for high-energy sources due to the photoelectric effect and its high cross section at low energies. However, the effect of scatter conditions is more important for high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry. For low-energy brachytherapy, mostly conducted as prostate implants, the surrounding tissue is adequate to provide full scatter conditions. In contrast, high-energy brachytherapy implants vary from those deeply positioned (e.g., gynecological) to surface applications (e.g., skin), with scatter significantly influencing dose calculations at clinically relevant POIs. It is not clear whether a simple modification of the current TG-43 formalism can account for partial radiation scatter conditions utilizing the current TG-43–based TPS. Alternatively, new dose calculation algorithms that correct for partial radiation scatter conditions are emerging. As for low-energy brachytherapy sources, especially those used in multi-source LDR implants, ISA effects are also present for high-energy LDR sources such as 192Ir and 137Cs. However, the clinical trend in the high-energy source domain is that HDR and PDR are more prevalent than the LDR procedures.

8 HEBD report One important limitation of current TPS dose calculation tools is the near-universal neglect of applicator shielding. For example, doses to the rectal and bladder walls are generally not accurately calculated for gynecological implants, and subsequently the reported doses associated with toxicities are incorrect. Correction methods[35,36] were developed based on attenuation values that were experimentally obtained, giving reasonable values in specific clinical applications such as shielded cylinders.[37] Shielding is also present on some vaginal applicators to protect the healthy vagina at variable applicator angles. Fortunately, the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasing relative to computed tomography (CT) for cervical brachytherapy. With the use of MRI-compatible applicators, imaging artifacts due to high-Z shields are mitigated. New algorithms that account for these effects are now appearing in commercial TPS as reviewed by Rivard et al.[33,34] and are the subject of the active AAPM Task Group 186. The TG-43 formalism was originally applied to sources with active lengths ranging from 2 mm to 4 mm, while typical HDR/PDR sources have active lengths ranging from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, and some high-energy LDR sources such as 137Cs tubes have active lengths >15 mm. Other LDR sources have a variable active length and/or curved active components like 192Ir wires. An approach to dose calculation for these sources that falls within the framework of the TG-43 formalism is presently being developed by the AAPM Task Group 143. In section III.C of this report the dependence of dosimetry parameters for high-energy sources on source active length is discussed, as is the effect of phantom size used in dose calculations and/or measurements. The latter discussion includes a methodology to convert datasets from bounded to unbounded (full scatter) conditions to compare data from different publications. The procedure used in this report for developing consensus datasets is based on this conversion methodology in some cases. Adaptation of extrapolation and interpolation techniques presented in the AAPM TG-43U1[2] and TG-43U1S1[3,4] reports was performed for high-energy sources. Finally, aspects specific to high-energy sources such as the electronic equilibrium region close to the source and the need for higher spatial resolution of the dose distribution close to the source are addressed.

III.A. Phantom size effects A limitation of the TG-43 formalism when applied to high-energy sources is the assumption of fixed scatter conditions at calculation points, without consideration of the tissue boundaries. The TG-43 dose calculation formalism assumes an infinite scattering medium and can result in overestimation of absorbed dose at a low-density interface. In many clinical settings, the actual scatter conditions may significantly deviate from these reference conditions, leading to significant dose overestimates, e.g., when the source is near the surface of the patient. This is often the case for breast implants. For example, some breast protocols [e.g., Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocol 0413] require that the dose homogeneity index include the skin dose calculations. Errors/limitations in calculating dose at shallow depths affect the dose calculation. Serago et al.[38] showed a dose reduction at points close to low-density interfaces of up to 8% for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy as typical for breast implants performed as a boost. Mangold et al.[39] showed deviations of up to 14% with measurements close to the tissue-air interface, whereas Wallner and colleagues[40] found the TPS to overestimate dose by no more than 5% at points close to the skin


and lung for partial breast irradiation. However, Raffi et al.[41] found TPS dose overestimations of up to 15%. Lymperopoulou et al.[42] reported that the skin dose overestimation can increase from 15% to 25% when 169Yb is used in place of 192Ir. Pantelis et al.[43] showed for breast implants at 2 to 5 cm depths with Monte Carlo (MC) radiation transport methods that the TPS overestimates by 5% to 10% the isodose contours lower than 60% of the prescribed dose. Other extreme clinical situations are superficial implants involving shallow clinical target volume (CTV) irradiations, or intraoperative brachytherapy for which specialized applicators have been designed. In the latter situation Raina et al.[44] showed differences of up to 13% between the dose calculated for actual and full scatter conditions in the surface tissue layer. In practice, this difference can be minimized by adding bolus, but this may not be clinically beneficial. TPS calculations are based on interpolation over stored two-dimensional (2D) water dose rate tables which assume cylindrically symmetric sources and applicators, a uniform water-equivalent medium, and negligible ISA effects. Usually, these dose rate tables consist of TG-43 parameter values or away-along dose rate tables. In principle, it seems logical that the tables include larger distances to avoid extrapolation. Although these larger distance values are not often clinically significant, accurate data are useful for dose calculations to radiosensitive anatomical structures outside the CTV, especially when the patient has undergone external beam radiotherapy. For low-energy brachytherapy dosimetry, the TG-43U1 report[2] recommended that the radial dose function g(r) extend to 7 cm for 125I and to 5 cm for 103Pd, which correspond to values of approximately 0.5% and 0.3% of the dose rate at 1 cm, respectively. Also in the TG-43U1 report, recommendations for

good practice for MC dosimetry included determination of the dose distribution for r 10 cm, with at least 5 cm of backscatter material for 125I and 103Pd. As will be justified below for high-energy

sources, the recommended range for g(r) is r 10 cm. Another issue is whether the TG-43 dosimetry parameters and the dose rate tables used by the TPS should be obtained with full scatter conditions for the complete range of distances. This issue is related to the appropriate phantom size to be used in MC calculations (henceforth labeled with “MC” subscript) or experimental purposes (henceforth labeled with “EXP” subscript), in order to establish the reference dose rate distributions used as input and benchmark data for TPS clinical dosimetry. For high-energy sources, an effectively unbounded spherical phantom radius R of 40 cm is recommended to promote uniformity of dose calculations for r < 20 cm, since it is not possible to cover all applications that move from superficial to deeper implants by selecting a smaller phantom size. Another issue to consider is the promise of new TPS algorithms to solve traditional calculation limitations such as tissue heterogeneities, patient and applicator scatter of radiation, intersource effects, and shielding corrections. These new algorithms will be discussed in section V. Phantom size is well known to be an important consideration in brachytherapy dosimetry. Ellet[45] studied boundary effects for photon source energies ranging from 0.03 to 2.75 MeV by comparing the dose in water spheres of radius R = 10, 20, 30, and 40 cm with the dose in an unbounded medium. Doses were observed to be within 5% of the values in an unbounded medium at distances of more than one mean free path from the interface (citing a mean free path of 2.19 cm for an energy of 0.03 MeV, 9.10 cm for 0.364 MeV, 11.7 cm for 0.662 MeV, and 17.3 cm for 1.46

10 HEBD report MeV). Williamson[46] compared MC calculations for 192Ir assuming an unbounded water phantom and a R = 15 cm spherical phantom with measured data from the Interstitial Collaborative Working

Group for a cubic phantom of approximate size (20 20 20) cm3. Agreement within 5% was observed up to 5 cm from the source, but differences of 5% to 10% were noted for r > 5 cm. Williamson and Li[47] found a difference of 12% at r = 12 cm from a microSelectron PDR 192Ir source between the dose calculated in an unbounded water phantom and that obtained with a spherical phantom (R = 15 cm). Venselaar et al.[48] measured the influence of phantom size on dose by changing the water level in a cubic water tank for 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources. Significant dose differences were observed between experiments with different phantom sizes. Karaiskos et al.[49] performed MC and thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) studies of the microSelectron HDR 192Ir source using spherical water phantoms with R = 10–50 cm. They ascertained that phantom dimensions significantly affect g(r) near-phantom boundaries where deviations of up to 25% were

observed. They did not observe significant differences in the anisotropy function F(r, ) for the different values of R. Other investigators have found a dose dependence on R due to the different scatter conditions.[50–56] Pérez-Calatayud et al.[29] presented a study where MCg(r) was obtained for water phantoms with

5 cm R 30 cm (125I and 103Pd) and 10 cm R 50 cm (192Ir and 137Cs). They showed that dose differences with respect to full scatter conditions for 192Ir and 137Cs sources, in the case of the most popular phantom size cited in the literature (R = 15 cm), reached 7% (192Ir) and 4.5% (137Cs) at r = 10 cm, but were only 1.5% (192Ir) and 1% (137Cs) at r = 5 cm. For R = 40 cm and 192Ir or 137Cs, the

dose rate was equivalent to an unbounded phantom for r 20 cm, since this size ensured full scatter conditions. For 125I and 103Pd, R = 15 cm was necessary to ensure full scatter conditions within 1%

for r 10 cm.[29] These results agree with the subsequent study by Melhus and Rivard,[30] who in

addition showed that for 169Yb a radius of R 40 cm is required to obtain data in full scatter

conditions for r 20 cm. Pérez-Calatayud et al.[29] developed a simple expression relating values of g(r) for various phantom sizes based on fits to the dose distributions for 192Ir and 137Cs. This expression is useful to compare published dose rate distributions for different phantom sizes, and to

correct g(r) values for bounded media of radius 10 cm R 40 cm to unbounded phantom values. Differences between corrected dose rate distributions and the corresponding MC results for a given

phantom size were less than 1% for r < R – 2 cm if R < 17 cm, and for r < 15 cm if R 17 cm. At larger distances r, the fitted dose rate distribution values did not lie within the 1% tolerance. These relations were based on the previous result that for R = 40 cm the dose rate was equivalent to an

unbounded phantom for r 20 cm. Some dosimetry investigators have used a 40-cm-high cylindrical phantom with a 20-cm radius in their MC studies. It has been shown that this phantom is equivalent to a spherical phantom with a 21-cm radius.[29] The expression developed by Pérez-Calatayud et al.[29] is not applicable to the outer 2 cm of this phantom. To date, most published MC high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry studies have been performed in a water sphere with R = 15 cm,[10,46,55,57–61] a

cylindrical phantom of size 40 cm 40 cm,[62–69] or a sphere with R = 40 cm.[70–72] Granero et al.[31]


developed correction factors expressed as fourth-degree polynomials to transform g(r) data for 192Ir and 137Cs obtained using commonly published phantom sizes into approximate g(r) values for unbounded phantom conditions, with agreement within 1%.[29–31] These correction factors are given in Table II.

Table II. Polynomial coefficients of the correction factors (CF) used to quantitatively compare bounded to unbounded radial dose functions for common phantom shapes and sizes.

CF was fitted as CF = C0 + C1 r + C2 r2 + C3 r

3 + C4 r4.[29] These coefficients have been obtained

by D. Granero (private communication) in a re-evaluation of their study which takes into account that with the coefficients in the original publication, g(r = 1 cm) was not exactly one.

Sphere

CF =g Rsph = 40 cm, r( )g Rsph = 15cm, r( )

1 cm r 15 cm

Cylinder

CF =g Rsph = 40 cm, r( )g Rcyl = 20 cm, r( )

1 cm r 20 cm

Cube

CF =g Rsph = 40 cm, r( )g Rcube = 15cm, r( )

1 cm r 15 cm

CF parameter 192Ir 137Cs 192Ir 137Cs 192Ir 137Cs

C0 [dimensionless] 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.001

C1 [cm–1] –3.52 × 10–3 –2.28 × 10–3 –1.23 × 10–3 –1.09 × 10–3 –3.27 × 10–3 –1.85 × 10–3

C2 [cm–2] 2.06 × 10–3 1.24 × 10–3 3.00 × 10–4 4.02 × 10–4 1.31 × 10–3 8.89 × 10–4

C3 [cm–3] –2.39 × 10–4 –1.35 × 10–4 –2.40 × 10–5 –3.93 × 10–5 –2.46 × 10–4 –9.45 × 10–5

C4 [cm–4] 1.38 × 10–5 7.78 × 10–6 1.90 × 10–6 2.08 × 10–6 8.50 × 10–6 5.23 × 10–6

In this joint AAPM/ESTRO report, g(r) values from published studies obtained under bounded conditions have been transformed to full scatter conditions with the correction factors in Table II. So, with these relationships, TPS users can transform data from the literature obtained in a bounded

medium to input data in full scatter conditions for r 15 cm. When different datasets obtained with different phantom sizes are compared, the boundary scatter defect must be taken into account. At r = 1 cm, full scatter exists within 0.5% for all studies,

hence the dose rate constant is directly comparable in all cases. As noted in the literature,[49] F(r, ) has been shown to be nearly independent of phantom size. Consequently, research has focused on g(r). Anagnostopoulos et al.[54] proposed a calculation algorithm based on the scatter-to-primary ratio to relate g(r) for one spherical phantom size to g(r) for other R values. Russell et al.[73] proposed another dose calculation algorithm based on primary and scatter dose separation involving parameterization functions which could also be used to correct the scatter defect. Melchert et al.[74] developed a novel approach inspired by field theory to calculating the dose decrease in a finite phantom for 192Ir point source(s).

12 HEBD report III.B. Dose calculation grid size and interpolation accuracy Traditionally, brachytherapy TPS utilized analytical methods such as the Sievert integral[75] to generate dose rate tables for conventional LDR brachytherapy sources such as 137Cs tubes and 192Ir wires. These systems then utilized the same method for data interpolation to calculate dose for clinical implants. However, current TPS used for HDR, PDR, and LDR brachytherapy allow direct introduction of tabulated dosimetry parameters from the literature. Some of this information is included in the TPS default dosimetric data supplied by the TPS manufacturer. In some systems, values of the dosimetry parameters are manipulated from one format to another in order to match the dose calculation algorithm used by the system. Examples include changing from rectangular to polar coordinates, using different mathematical functions to fit and smooth tabulated data, and extrapolating data outside of the available data range. Therefore, it is desirable that TG-43 consensus data be presented with adequate range and spatial resolution in order to facilitate input and verification of the accuracy of the TPS dose calculation algorithm. A review of the published data on dosimetry parameters for various high-energy brachytherapy sources indicates that different authors have used a variety of spatial and angular increments and ranges in their dosimetric procedures. Therefore, a clear methodology for interpolation or extrapolation of the published data may be required to determine dose rate distributions at spatial locations not explicitly included in the published data. The AAPM TG-43U1 report[2] provided guidelines for interpolation and extrapolation of one-dimensional (1D) and 2D dosimetry parameters. The 2007 supplement (i.e., TG-43U1S1)[3,4] included further clarification and modifications of the interpolation and extrapolation techniques in order to make these procedures more accurate. Unlike for low-energy sources, the 1D approximation for high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry is not recommended, based on the smaller number of sources generally used, known source orientation(s), and the method used for source localization. In this section, the parameter range and spatial resolution, as well as interpolation and extrapolation recommendations are provided. The interpolation and extrapolation recommendations for high-energy (and low-energy from TG-43U1S1) brachytherapy sources of 2D dosimetry are summarized in Table III.

Table III. Interpolation and extrapolation recommendations for high-energy (low-energy)[3] brachytherapy sources for the line-source approximation.

Parameter r < rmin Extrapolation

rmin < r rmax Interpolation

r > rmax Extrapolation

gL(r) Nearest neighbor or

zeroth-order extrapolation (Ditto)

Linear (log-linear) using datapoints immediately adjacent to the radius of

interest

Linear using data of last two tabulated radii (single exponential function based

on fitting gL(r) datapoints for the furthest three r values).

F(r, ) Nearest neighbor or

zeroth-order extrapolation (Ditto)

Bilinear (bilinear) interpolation method for

F(r, )

Nearest neighbor or zeroth-order r-extrapolation (Ditto)


With respect to the angular resolution for F(r, ), 10° steps were generally recommended by the TG-43U1[2] report, although 1° steps near the source long axes may be needed to have 2%

interpolation accuracy over the range of angles. For radial resolution, TG-43U1 recommended F(r, ) be tabulated at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 5 cm for 103Pd and also at 7 cm for 125I. For gL(r), the recommended

range was the same as the F(r, ) radial range, but no specifics were provided concerning radial resolution. However, both the TG-43U1 and TG-43U1S1[3,4] reports required that the gL(r) radial

resolution permit log-linear interpolation and fitting with ±2% accuracy. The radial coordinate mesh recommended by HEBD is similar to that recommended by LEBD for low-energy sources. However, a maximum range of 10 cm is indicated since the dose rate here is about 1% of the value at r0 due to the more uniform g(r) behavior for high-energy sources. The minimum r value for the high-energy consensus datasets will also differ based on consideration of radiological interactions. Some differences between low-energy and high-energy source dosimetry include the following:

1. From a clinical perspective, there is more concern with dose accuracy along the longitudinal axis region of the source for high-energy sources as there is a larger proportion of treatments in which the dose along this axis is included in the prescription (e.g., dome applicators for hysterectomyzed patients, endometrial applicators) than for low-energy brachytherapy. In contrast, permanent prostate implants use many seeds, and the longitudinal axis region is less relevant because of volume averaging and the contribution of many seeds with variable axis orientation.[76–78]

2. For high-energy sources, MC-based dosimetry is the predominant method in part due to its robustness at these energies. When measurement conditions are subject to challenges (associated with detector energy response, detector radiation sensitivity, positioning uncertainty, detector volume averaging, influence of radiation scatter conditions on results, etc.), the role of experimental dosimetry for high-energy brachytherapy may be more limited

than MC-based dosimetry. Experiment may primarily serve to validate MC, and to obtain

for averaging with MC-derived values since MC is primarily used to determine F(r, ) and gL(r) for high-energy sources. Consequently, range and spatial resolution limitations are not of concern for MC methods and high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry. However, caution must be taken at close distances if electron transport and electron emissions are not considered.

A study by Pujades-Claumarchirant et al.[79] has been performed for high-energy sources to

check methods of interpolation/extrapolation that allow accurate reproduction of gL(r) and F(r, )

from tabulated values, including the minimum number of entries for gL(r) and F(r, ) that allow accurate reproduction of dose distributions. Four sources were studied: 192Ir, 137Cs, 60Co, and a hypothetical 169Yb source. The r mesh was that typically used in the literature: 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 1.5 cm, and for 2 to 10 cm in 1 cm steps, adding the point rgmax = 0.33 cm for 60Co and rgmax = 0.35 cm

for 137Cs near the maximum value g(rgmax). For F(r, ), the entries for polar angles close to the source

14 HEBD report long axis were evaluated at four different step sizes: 1°, 2°, 5°, and 10°. For gL(r), linear interpolations agreed within 0.5% compared with MC results. The same agreement was observed for

F(r, ) bilinear interpolations using 1° and 2° step sizes. Based on the Pujades-Claumarchirant et al. study,[79] minimum polar angle resolutions of 2° (0° to 10° interval), 5° (10° to 30° interval), and 10° (30° to 90° interval) with the addition of corresponding supplementary angles as applicable if dosimetric asymmetry about the transverse

plane is >2% are recommended. Further, use of bilinear and linear interpolation for F(r, ) and gL(r), respectively, is recommended since log-linear interpolation is not a significant improvement over linear g(r) interpolation for high-energy sources.[79]

F(r, ) and gL(r) extrapolation for r > 10 cm could be performed by linear extrapolation from the last two tabulated values. However, because of the inverse square law, the dose rate is very low and not clinically relevant. If dosimetric accuracy is required for r > 10 cm, for example to calculate organ-at-risk dose, users must refer to the original MC publication. In contrast with low-energy brachytherapy dosimetry, extrapolation for high-energy sources

for r rmin is complicated. Electronic equilibrium is reached within a distance of 0.1 mm from the capsule for a low-energy source due to the short electron range. Thus, it can be assumed that collisional kerma is equal to absorbed dose everywhere. For high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry, the region of electronic disequilibrium near the source and the contribution from emitted electrons can be important issues, and are not considered in most MC publications. In a recent study of Ballester et al.[28] MC calculations scoring dose and taking into account electronic emission are compared with MC calculations scoring collisional kerma at short distances for spherical sources with active and capsule materials mimicking those of actual sources. Electronic equilibrium is reached to within 1% for 192Ir, 137Cs, 60Co, and 169Yb at distances greater than 2, 3.5, 7, and 1 mm from the source center, respectively. Electron emissions are important (i.e., >0.5% of the total dose) within 3.3 mm of 60Co and 1.7 mm of 192Ir source centers but are negligible over all distances for 137Cs and 169Yb. Ballester et al.[28] concluded that electronic equilibrium conditions obtained for spherical sources could be generalized to actual sources, while electron contributions to total dose depend strongly on source dimensions, material composition, and electron spectra. Consequently, no extrapolation method can accurately predict near-source dose rate distributions because they depend on both the extent of electronic disequilibrium and the electron dose at distances closer than the minimum tabulated results. However, tabular data containing voids close to and inside the source should not be presented, and adoption of the TG-43U1S1 extrapolation method for r < rmin using the nearest neighbor data for

gL(r) is recommended until such time as future studies generate data for this region. For F(r, ), HEBD decided to take advantage of partial data and proposed the following approach as a compromise to maintain consistency with the TG-43U1S1 report: fill in missing data for partially

complete F(r, ) tables using linear extrapolation in r for fixed polar angle based on the last two tabulated values, and use zeroth order (nearest neighbor) extrapolation for r < rmin. It is emphasizedthat extrapolated values are only included for the purpose of providing complete data tables as re-quired by some TPS. Dose data outside the source obtained from these extrapolated values could be


subject to large errors due to beta (electron) contribution, kerma versus dose differences, andlinear extrapolation limitations. Data inside the source are only provided for TPS requirements andthey do not have any physical meaning. These extrapolated values should be used with caution inclinical dosimetry because potentially large errors exist; this scenario is different from the low-energycase of TG-43U1S1 where differences between MC calculated and extrapolated doses are generallyminimal. The formalisms of the 1995[1] and 2004[2] TG-43 reports were based on dosimetric characteristics of seed models for brachytherapy sources containing 125I, 103Pd, and 192Ir having nearly spherical dose distributions, given their relatively large ratios of radial distance to active source length. Therefore, it is appropriate to use the polar coordinate system to describe dosimetric parameters around these sources. However, several investigators have shown that this approach fails when the active length is greater than the distance to the POI.[80–83] Alternatively, the advantage of using the cylindrical coordinate system (Y, Z)–based TG-43 formalism has been demonstrated for dose calculations around elongated brachytherapy sources by Patel et al.[84] and Awan et al.[85] Detailed comparisons between the polar and cylindrical coordinate–based formalisms are given by Awan et al.[85] and the forthcoming AAPM TG-143 report. In these comparisons, it has been demonstrated that the basic dosimetry parameters in the two coordinate systems are very similar. The

main difference is in the F(r, ) definition:

Fpol r,( ) = Fcyl Y, Z( )g Y( )

g r( ). (1)

However, the cylindrical coordinate system–based formalism provides a more accurate tool for interpolation and extrapolation of dosimetry parameters for a given source, since the spatial sampling better approximates the cylindrical radiation dose distribution. For the high-energy sources considered in this report, the active length up to 1.5 cm, the TG-43 approach using polar coordinates also applies well if adequate mesh resolution is utilized, and then it is recommended here. Dosimetric considerations (source calibration, TG-43 parameter derivation, TPS implementation, etc.) for sources with larger active lengths and curved lengths are being evaluated by AAPM TG-143.

III.C. Dosimetry parameter dependence on active length The dosimetric properties of a brachytherapy source depend upon the geometry and material composition of the source core and its encapsulation. For high-energy photon emitters such as 192Ir, the material composition dependence is much less pronounced than that for low-energy emitters such as 125I.[1,2] This leads to a greater similarity of TG-43 dosimetry parameters for high-energy sources containing the same radionuclide and having comparable dimensions than for low-energy sources. For example, a study by Williamson and Li[47] comparing the original microSelectron Classic HDR 192Ir source (Nucletron B.V., The Netherlands) with the PDR source and the old VariSource HDR 192Ir source revealed that they have nearly identical values, and their gL(r) data agreed within ~1%

16 HEBD report for r > 0.5 cm. Selected reports from the literature describing such similarities for 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co brachytherapy sources are summarized below. Wang and Sloboda[86] compared the transverse plane dose distributions for four 192Ir brachytherapy sources (Best Medical model 81-01, Nucletron microSelectron HDR and PDR 192Ir sources, Varian VariSource HDR) and five hypothetical 192Ir cylindrical source designs using the EGS4 MC code. The transverse-plane dose rate and air-kerma strength sK per unit contained activity were calculated in a spherical water phantom of R = 15 cm and a dry air sphere of 5 m diameter,

respectively, to study the influence of the active length L and R on these quantities. For r 4L, the transverse-plane dose rate and sK depended on R but not on L, and were proportional to the corresponding quantities for an unencapsulated point source to within 1%. When the transverse-plane dose rate was normalized to sK, differences in the dose rate profiles between the various

sources disappeared for r 4L. For r < 4L, the transverse-plane dose rate and sK were dependent on

both R and L, and the geometry function G(r, ) was the principal determinant of the shape of the normalized dose rate profile. Photon absorption and scattering in the source had a considerably smaller influence and partly compensated one another, whereas differences in the photon energy fluence exiting the source were not of sufficient magnitude to influence absorption and scattering

fractions for the dose rate in water. Upon calculating and gL(r) for the four real sources using

GL(r, ) (except for the microSelectron PDR source for which the particle streaming function SL(r, )

was used),[87] observed differences in were explained on the basis of differences in GL(r, ) and

source core diameter d. For r 1 cm, gL(r) were similarly identical within 1%, and small differences for r < 1 cm were caused by varying degrees of photon absorption and scattering in the sources. Karaiskos and colleagues[88] obtained TG-43 dosimetry parameters for 192Ir wire of active

lengths 0.5 cm L 12 cm and internal diameters d = 0.1, 0.3, and 0.4 cm using an in-house MC

code and a modified Sievert-integral method. They employed GL(r, ), as they had previously shown

it to introduce differences of <1% compared with SL(r, ) for r > L/2 and similarly small differences

for clinically relevant wire lengths of 4 to 6 cm for r L/2.[89] With the line source approximation, a

scaling relation holds between geometry functions for sources of different active lengths L and L

GL r,( )

GL r ,( )=

L r sin( )

L r sin( )=

L r

L r=

L

L, (2)

where is the angle subtended by the active length with respect to the calculation point P(r, ) and

r

r=

L

L due to similar triangles. Karaiskos et al. subsequently determined that for wires of equal

length was only weakly dependent on d, differences being <3%. Based on this observation, they


showed that for any 192Ir source of active length L can be related to that of a reference source of active length LREF using:

L

GL r0 , 0( )=

LREF

GLREFr0 , 0( )

. (3)

This relation was found to hold to within 2% for LREF 5 cm, and to <3% when realistic HDR 192Ir

brachytherapy sources were considered. Thus, this relation can be used to calculate for 192Ir wires

of arbitrary length, and may also be useful to check the consistency of EXP- or MC-derived values

for other source models. The investigators also determined that gL(r) for 0.2 cm r 10 cm was independent of L to <2% and of d to <3%. They concluded that MC-calculated values of gL(r) for L

set to 5 cm were adequate for most any length. Sievert-integral[75] calculated F(r, ) values decreased

as d increased, but by no more than 3% over all radial distances examined. MC-calculated F(r, )

values were nearly unity for polar angles 30° 90° for all r and L. However, a strong

dependence on both r and L was observed for < 30°. This was due in part to the fact that the main dose contributor to a point close to the source is the source segment closest to that point; whereas for

points further away from the source, the entire source length contributes and F(r, ) decreases for polar angles close to the long axis due to oblique filtration within the source structure. Then, van der Laarse et al.[82] developed these ideas to create a new method, named the Two Length Segmented (TLS) method, which models brachytherapy dose parameters for 192Ir wires of any length and shape using dose parameters for straight wire segments 0.5 and 1.0 cm in length. The resultant dose rate distributions around straight and U-shaped wires agreed better with MC calculations than those obtained with the Point Segmented Source method, Line Segmented Source method, or Karaiskos et al.[88] dose calculation models. Papagiannis et al.[90] performed a dosimetry comparison of five HDR 192Ir sources (old and new Nucletron microSelectron, old and new Varian VariSource, and the Buchler source), the LDR 192Ir seed (Best Medical model 81-01), and the LDR 192Ir wire source (Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH) in an R = 15 cm liquid water sphere using their own MC code. They tested the validity of

equation (3) relating using the reference geometry function GL(r0, 0), with a point 192Ir source serving as the reference, and found that the ensuing expression,

= 1.12 GL r0 , 0( ) cGy h 1U 1 (4) yielded with differences <2% at reference radial distances of 1 and 2 cm for any of the 192Ir source

designs. The value 1.12 cGy cm2 h–1 U–1 corresponds to for an 192Ir point source.[91] These investigators also found that g(r) for all sources except the Buchler source were in close agreement

for distances 0.1 cm r 5 cm, and lay within 2% of g(r) for a point 192Ir source. The Buchler

18 HEBD report source presented a slight increase at radial distances r < 0.5 cm, possibly arising from hardening of the emerging photon spectrum due to its larger source core diameter. All sources were observed to

exhibit non-negligible anisotropy, with F(r, ) values being strongly dependent on source geometry.

F(r = 0.2 cm, ) did not significantly differ from unity over all polar angles for all sources since the

main contributor to the dose rate at P(r, ) is the source segment closest to that point. Using their established MC code, Karaiskos et al.[55] compared the dosimetry of the old and new Nucletron microSelectron PDR 192Ir source designs in an R = 15 cm liquid water sphere. They

found the to be identical to each other and to that for a point source to within statistical uncertainties of ~0.5% and explained the result in terms of equation (3) on the basis of the short L of

0.6 and 1.0 mm for the sources. Using SL(r, ),[87,89] the gL(r) values were found to be identical within 1% to those obtained using the linear source approximation GL(r, ) over the distance interval 0.1 cm

r 14 cm. When the point source geometry function r 2 was used, differences >1% were observed

only for r < 0.3 mm. The F(r, ) for both source designs was found to be significant only at polar

angles close to the longitudinal source axis ( < 30° and > 150°) and to be greatest within these angular intervals at intermediate radial distances for reasons discussed previously.[90] The new design

presented increased F(r, ) up to 10% at polar angles near = 0° (distal end of the source) as a result of its longer active core. Casal et al.[63,67] and Pérez-Calatayud et al.[63,67] calculated the dose rate distributions around three different LDR 137Cs sources (Amersham models CDCS-M, CDC-1, and CDC-3) in a 40 cm high, 40 cm diameter water cylinder using the GEANT3 MC code. TG-43 dosimetry parameters

were obtained using GL(r, ). For the model CDCS-M source they found /GL(r0, 0) constancy, 1.05 cGy cm2/(h U), within 0.9% for the corresponding ratio of the model CDC-J source, which had the same encapsulation but a 1.5 mm shorter active length. The latter ratio was determined from MC

data published by Williamson.[57] For the CDC-1 and CDC-3 sources, the values of /GL(r0, 0) differed by only 0.1%. For all three sources, gL(r) was no more than 1% different from the

normalized Meisberger polynomial for 0.5 cm r 10 cm.[92] The F(r, ) results corresponded to the varying self-attenuation associated with the different source designs. Papagiannis et al.[10] compared the dosimetry of three HDR 60Co sources containing two active pellets in contact or spaced 9 or 11 mm apart, used in the Ralstron remote afterloader. MC calculations for an R = 15 cm water sphere were done with the group’s own simulation code and included electron transport for r < 0.5 cm. The dose rate distribution around the source having the pellets in contact closely resembled that for an unencapsulated 60Co point source. As r increased sufficiently for the point-source approximation to apply, the dose rate distributions for the other two designs also conformed to that of a point source, presenting only minor spatial dose anisotropy close

to the source long axis. The main influence on once again proved to be the spatial distribution of

activity, represented by GL(r, ), for reasons similar to those cited for commercial 192Ir source designs. Consequently, the relation


= 1.094 GL r0 , 0( ) cGy h 1U 1 , (5) where = 1.094 cGy cm2 h–1 U–1 for a 60Co point source,[91] was used to obtain values for realistic 60Co sources within ±2%. Using the GL(r, ), gL(r) also agreed within 2% for 0.5 cm r 15 cm.

However, using GP(r), differences of up to 28% were noted. F(r, ) for all three source designs

calculated using GL(r, ) indicated that dose anisotropy was negligible for r 1 cm, and was only

evident for r > 1 cm at points close to the source drive wire ( ~ 180°). In summary, the dosimetry for r < 2 cm is primarily determined by the contained activity distribution for high-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. The influence of photon attenuation and scattering in the source core and capsule is comparatively smaller in magnitude, and

is further diminished when D r,( ) SK is calculated. As a consequence, for commercially

available 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co brachytherapy sources containing the same radionuclide are equal

(within a few percent) to the product of for an unencapsulated point source and GL(r, ). Corresponding gL(r) values for sources containing the same radionuclide that have been extracted

from dose distribution data using GL(r, ) also agree to within a few percent over the radial interval

0.3 cm r 10 cm. Self-attenuation in the active core and surrounding encapsulation characterizing

each source design influences F(r, ).

20 HEBD report IV. CONSENSUS DATASET METHODOLOGY The source models reviewed in this report satisfy the AAPM/ESTRO recommendations published by the HEBD in Li et al.[17] The consensus methodology for these high-energy sources is similar to that recommended for low-energy sources by LEBD[2] but has been adapted for high-energy sources. According to these HEBD recommendations,[17] there are two source categories:

1. For conventional encapsulated sources similar in design to existing or previously existing ones, a single dosimetric study published in a peer-reviewed journal is sufficient. MC or EXP dosimetry (or both) methods may be used.

2. For all other high-energy sources, at least two dosimetric studies published in peer-reviewed journals by researchers independent of the vendor, one theoretical (i.e., MC-based) and one experimental, are required.

In the present report, all 192Ir and 137Cs sources are categorized as “conventional encapsulated sources.” While not commercially available at the time of publication of the current recommendations, HDR 60Co sources are also included in this first category. The remaining radionuclides, 169Yb and 170Tm, fall into the second category. Similarly to the AAPM TG-43U1 report, appropriate publications reporting single source

dosimetry were evaluated. For each source model, a single TG-43U1 consensus dataset (CONL, CON ,

CONgL(r), CONF(r, ) including data up to r = 10 cm) was derived from multiple published datasets as detailed below. If items essential to critical evaluation were omitted from a publication, the authors were contacted for information or clarification. The methodology followed to derive a consensus dataset was as follows:

1. The peer-reviewed literature was examined to identify candidate datasets for each source model that were derived either from measurements or MC studies and that followed the guidelines of the TG-43U1[2] and HEBD report.[17] The quality of each dataset was then examined, taking into consideration salient factors such as data consistency, MC code benchmarking, etc.

2. The value of CON was obtained from MC data for the following reasons: MC results’ uncertainties were always less than the measured uncertainties. Frequently, only MC results

were available without measured results, and the variations of MC were typically less than the

MC uncertainties for high-energy sources. The EXP have been in good agreement with MC.

For example, Daskalov et al.[93] showed that EXP for the mHDR-v2 source agreed with MC to within 2%. The value from Meisberger et al.[92] agreed to within 0.3%.

3. In most cases, CONgL(r) and CONF(r, ) were taken from a single MC study. When available,

experimental studies were used to validate MCgL(r) and MCF(r, ). Data selection was based on


highest spatial resolution (r and ), largest radial range, and highest degree of smoothness. Even though some selected published data used the point-source approximation or the particle streaming function,[87,89] those data were transformed for use with the linear geometry function.

4. Values of CONgL(r) were determined for full scatter conditions as described in section III.A and

for values of r 10 cm.

5. As described in section III.B, a candidate publication’s gL(r) and F(r, ) data were examined to determine whether the values at short distances took into account a possible lack of electronic equilibrium (if collisional kerma was simulated instead of absorbed dose) and included any non-negligible beta component. This issue should be addressed in the publication because of the dependence of gL(r) at short distances on capsule material and thickness. If it was not, data at affected small r were removed. Future publications need to explicitly consider these electronic dose effects.

6. If the liquid water phantom used in a selected MC calculation did not generate gL(r) under full

scatter conditions for r 10 cm, the data were corrected to unbounded conditions as justified in section III.A according to the polynomial corrections in Table II. These modified values are indicated using [brackets] in the consensus dataset tables.

7. Data inside the source are only provided for TPS requirements and they do not have any physical meaning. These data are italicized.

8. For sources included in this report, AAPM/ESTRO recommends the 2D brachytherapy

dosimetry formalism and 2D tables: F(r, ), GL(r, ), and gL(r). Source orientation is considered in all currently available TPS for nonpermanent implants. From the clinical point of view, source orientation is more relevant along and near the source long axis for high-energy dosimetry. There are a significant number of treatments in which the long-axis dose close to the first source position is included in the target prescription (i.e., gynecological applications). In contrast, it is less relevant for low-energy permanent implants with many seeds, where source orientation averaging is adequate.

9. Data interpolation of gL(r) and F(r, ) is needed for dataset comparison and within consensus

tables. In the TG-43U1 report,[2] interpolations were required to yield 2% error. For the high-energy regime, this should be reduced to 1%. Interpolated data are indicated by boldface and follow the methodology described in section III.B.

10. Similar to TG-43U1S1, CONgL(r) values were tabulated on a common mesh for all source

models of the same radionuclide. In contrast, the mesh used for CONF(r, ) follows the one(s) included in the selected publication(s). CONgL(r) starts from the minimum available distance, and continues with the common mesh [0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10] cm, according to section III.B, to ensure linear-linear interpolation accuracy within 1%. Further, for the case of 60Co, high-resolution radial distance data are required in the vicinity of the source. The minimum r-value in the consensus dataset may be different as a function of the source model

22 HEBD report

considered, physical processes in play based on photon energy, and the method used to simulate or measure dose in this region.

11. According to section III.B, the recommended angular mesh for CONF(r, ) is: 0° to 10° (1° increments), 10° to 20° (5° increments), 20° to 160° (10° increments), 160° to 170° (5° increments), 170° to 180° (1° increments). Consensus data were selected based on having an angular mesh closest to the recommended one.

12. Extrapolation of consensus datasets was performed following the methodology described in section III.B. Extrapolated values are underlined in dataset tables.

13. Upon derivation of the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table was obtained

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes. Range and resolution of this table are: away [0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2–7 (1 cm increment)] cm and along [0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2–7 (1 cm increments)] cm.

14. To provide a consistent convention for all brachytherapy sources, the angle origin is selected

to be the source tip, i.e., is defined such that 0° is in the direction of the source tip. For the case of asymmetric LDR sources (without driven cable) the angle origin will be clearly identified for each source model. The origin of coodinates is selected to be the center of the active volume for all sources. Published data with a different angle/coordinate origin were transformed accordingly. This convention is recommended for future studies.

The criteria used to evaluate dosimetry parameters for each source were similar to those of the TG-43U1 report and are as follows:

1. Internal geometry and description of the source. 2. Review of pertinent literature for the source. 3. Measurement medium to liquid water medium corrections (if applicable). 4. Experimental method used. 5. Geometry function used; active length assumed for the line source approximation. 6. Name and version of MC code. 7. MC cross-section library. 8. Variance reduction techniques used (for sK and dose in water). 9. Electron emission inclusion. 10. Photon emission spectrum. 11. MC benchmarking according to the HEBD prerequisites.[17] 12. Phantom shape and size used in MC and EXP. 13. Agreement between MC and experimental dosimetry (if applicable, according to the

HEBD prerequisites).[17]


IV.A. Dose rate constant As pointed out in TG-43U1,[2] MC and experimental studies complement one another, and when combined can average out possible biases of each individual methodology. In contrast to the

low-energy case, the high-energy CON is obtained from the average of MC values alone, while

available EXP are used to validate MC. For the sources considered in this report, the EXP agrees with

MC to within 2%.[93] This approach is justified because unlike for lower energy sources, the influence of source geometry on the dose distribution is less important at higher energies. It also has the advantage of utilizing the smaller uncertainties of the MC method, thus providing reduced

uncertainty in the value of CON . In the case of sources within the category of “conventional

encapsulated, similar to existing ones” for which just one study was available, the value was compared with those for sources of similar design, first removing the geometrical dependence by

forming the ratio /GL(r0, 0), as discussed in section III.C. Based on trends observed during the

compilation of this report, the agreement between MC- and EXP-derived values should be 1%.

IV.B. Radial dose function For each source, MC and experimental gL(r) results were graphically compared. When a published study used a geometry function that was different from the simple linear geometry function, gL(r) was recomputed. Based on trends observed during the compilation of this report, the

agreement between MC and EXP gL(r) values should be 3%. The most complete and smooth MC dataset was selected that also considered electronic disequilibrium and the dose from electron emissions.

IV.C. 2D anisotropy function For each source, published F(r, ) values from MC and EXP results were graphically compared. If a geometry function different from the simple linear geometry function was used,

F(r, ) was recomputed. Based on trends observed during the compilation of this report, the

agreement between MC and EXP F(r, ) values, when available, should be 5%.

24 HEBD report

V. RECOMMENDATIONS ON DOSIMETRY CHARACTERIZATION METHODS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES

The TG-43U1 report[2] on low-energy brachytherapy contains many methodological recommendations and suggestions that should be followed by investigators who would like their published work, whether based upon experimental or computational methods, to be considered as a reference-quality dataset for inclusion in the consensus dose-distribution formation process. In general, all TG-43U1 guidelines and recommendations are also applicable to high-energy source dosimetry, unless otherwise specified in the sections below. Thus, the present recommendations emphasize mainly variances from the TG-43U1 LEBD-recommended methodology for obtaining brachytherapy dosimetry parameters. In 2007, AAPM/ESTRO recommendations on dosimetric prerequisites for routine clinical use of photon-emitting brachytherapy sources with average energies higher than 50 keV were published.[17] These recommendations, similar to the AAPM LEBD recommendations[16] apply to brachytherapy sources that are intended for routine clinical use, and were intended to define minimum requirements for future source dosimetry studies so that the accuracy and consistency of the consensus datasets may be improved. In the current report, only the deviations from the TG-43U1 recommendations[2] (section V, p. 650) necessitated by the higher photon energies or different physical configurations of the sources are noted. These are categorized as (A) preparation of dosimetry parameters, (B) reference data and conditions for brachytherapy dosimetry, (C) and (D) methodological recommendations, (E) uncertainty analyses, (F) publication of dosimetry results, and (G) non-MC computational methods.

V.A. Preparation of dosimetry parameters For the high-energy sources, e.g., HDR 192Ir sources, dosimetric parameters should be tabulated for 2D formalisms. Exceptions include spherical pellets (e.g., 137Cs Selectron from Nucletron) where a 2D model cannot be formulated. Regardless of the dimensionality of the formalism adopted, the line-source approximation should always be used for computing the

geometry function (with the obvious exception of spherically symmetric sources), GL(r, ), and gL(r).

For reader convenience, we include the following alternative expression for GL(r, ):

GL r,( ) =

cos 1r cos

L

2

r2+

L

2

2

Lr cos

cos 1r cos +

L

2

r2+

L

2

2

+ Lr cos

Lr sin. (6)


This expression of GL(r, ) has been included in which cos and cos–1 are used as alternatives to tan and tan–1. The practical reason is that a negative argument of tan–1 results in a negative angle, instead of an angle between 90° and 180° as required by the TG-43 formalism polar coordinate system.

For F(r, ) and gL(r), the minimum-maximum range for r and , and the resolution within this range where dose rate shall be calculated or measured, has been discussed in section IV. If polynomial fits are presented, care should be taken to assure agreement within 0.5% between the polynomial fit prediction and the original tabulated data over the whole range. Special care must be taken rounding-off parameters from the fit. To assure that g(r0 = 1 cm) = 1 with enough precision, the summation of all the parameters must be “1.0000.” Further, the range over which the fit is applicable should be stated. In addition to the TG-43 dosimetry parameters, a derived away-along table should be included for TPS QA testing purposes as described in section IV.

V.A.1. Air-kerma strength As similarly recommended in the TG-43U1 report,[2] source strength for high-energy sources should be expressed in terms of air-kerma strength or reference air-kerma rate (RAKR), not apparent activity, mg-Ra-eq, or other antiquated units. Exceptions may result in patient harm.

V.A.2. Dose rate constant All TG-43U1 recommendations are applicable to high-energy sources, with the exception that for conventionally encapsulated 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources, only a single source is required for experimental purposes. To ensure validity of the source model used by MC simulations, pinhole autoradiography,[94] multi-slit techniques,[95] and transmission radiography should be utilized to confirm the manufacturer’s specifications for active length, uniform activity distribution, and physical-to-active source-tip offset. Experimental determinations of absolute dose rates to water from high-energy sources should have direct traceability of SK to a primary or secondary standard dosimetry laboratory such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or an

Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory (ADCL). Experimentally, is evaluated by taking the

ratio D r0 , 0( ) SK .

V.A.3. Radial dose function In addition to the TG-43U1 recommendations, investigators must consider using coupled photon-electron MC codes for short distances where secondary charged particle equilibrium failures imply a deviation of dose from collisional kerma in excess of 2%. As discussed in section III.B, deviations greater than 1% may occur at distances less than 7, 3.5, 2, and 1 mm from the center of 60Co, 137Cs, 192Ir, and 169Yb sources, respectively. Similarly, -ray transport must be simulated at distances where dose-to-kerma ratio deviations exceeding 1% are possible.

26 HEBD report

V.A.4. 2D Anisotropy function The recommendations of the AAPM TG-43U1 report[2] are to be followed.

V.B. Reference data and conditions for brachytherapy dosimetry V.B.1. Radionuclide data The influence of photon spectrum choice on brachytherapy dosimetry parameters such as and g(r) has been studied by Rivard et al.[96] For 192Ir sources, they found that the uncertainties propagated to these parameters by photon-spectrum uncertainties were much less than 1% (k = 1). Given the standardization of radionuclide data available from the NNDC and the rigorous infrastructure for performing and maintaining the dataset evaluations, the AAPM and ESTRO recommend that NNDC data be used for clinically related applications of all brachytherapy.[20]

V.B.2. Reference media As recommended by TG-43U1, pure degassed liquid water (H2O) with a mass density of 0.998 g/cm3 at 22.0 °C should be used for MC as the medium for both specification of absorbed dose and dose distributions. As clarified in the TG-43U1S1 report,[3] dry air (0% humidity) is recommended for SK in contrast to the TG-43U1 report, which recommended air at 40% relative humidity. The composition of dry air is given in Table XIV of the TG-43U1 report.

V.C. Methodological recommendations for experimental dosimetry Historical reviews of experimental dosimetry for interstitial brachytherapy sources, including high-energy sources, appear in Williamson[97] and, for 192Ir only, in the original TG-43 report.[1] Starting from the earliest work of Meredith et al.,[98] who used a cylindrical perspex ion chamber to measure exposure in air and water for 192Ir interstitial sources, and progressing to dose measurements using lithium fluoride (LiF) TLDs in solid phantoms, these papers and their associated references give an excellent perspective on experimental dosimetry methodologies in this field. A more detailed and contemporary review of experimental brachytherapy dosimetry methods, including emerging detector technologies such as radiochromic film, gels, and liquid-filled ionization chambers, has been given by Williamson and Rivard.[99]

V.C.1. Detector choice Experimental determination of dose distributions around high-energy brachytherapy sources face the same challenges as their low-energy counterparts: high-dose gradients near the source and low-dose rates further away. Moreover, at close distances to the brachytherapy source, detector size can significantly influence dose measurement accuracy due to averaging in the presence of high dose


gradients and source self-attenuation. Thus, a suitable detector should possess a wide dynamic range, high sensitivity, flat energy response, and small geometric dimensions. A number of detectors (e.g., diodes, radiochromic films, and TLDs) satisfy the above criteria and therefore have commonly been used. Dosimeters used for reference data should satisfy the following criteria:

1. A relatively small active volume such that effects resulting from averaging of high-gradient dose fields over this volume are negligible or are accurately accounted for by correction factors.

2. A well-characterized energy-response function such that differences between the calibration energy and experimentally measured energy are either negligible or may be quantitatively accounted for.

3. Sufficient precision and reproducibility to permit estimation of dose rate in medium with k = 1

Type A (statistical) uncertainties 3% and k = 1 Type B uncertainties 6%. While no practical detector system perfectly fulfills the three requirements above, among the established dosimetry techniques, LiF TLD-100 detectors provide a good trade-off between flat energy dependence, small size, and detector dynamic range for both high- and low-energy brachytherapy sources and thus has been used most frequently.[99,100] For example, silicon diodes, which have smaller active detector volumes and larger sensitivities (reading per unit dose in water), violate requirement 2 above. They have sensitivities that vary by as much as 60% with respect to source-detector distance[101,102] for 169Yb and 192Ir sources due to the variation in photon spectra. Thus, the AAPM and ESTRO currently do not recommend silicon diode detectors for reference-quality dose measurement for sources with mean energies exceeding 50 keV. Among validated and fully developed dosimeter technologies, TLD dosimetry has the least position-dependent sensitivity for high-energy sources. TLD energy response has been reported to vary 10% to 15% over the 1 to 10 cm distance range for 192Ir sources.[103] Similar magnitude but opposite direction variations have been reported for older (MD-55-2 and earlier) radiochromic film models.[104,105] Newer models of radiochromic film [EBT[106–108] and EBT2[109–112] include small concentrations of a medium atomic number loading compound designed to compensate for the absorbed dose under-response of the diacetylene monomer active sensor medium. EBT film type has a nearly energy-independent dose response.[113,114] MD-55-2 radiochromic film has been used successfully to measure high-resolution (<0.25 mm) absolute dose distributions around HDR 192Ir sources[115] and LDR 137Cs sources[116] with k = 1 total uncertainties of 4% to 4.6%, among the lowest ever reported for such measurements around a brachytherapy source using a secondary detector. However, these detectors must be considered under development at this time because of numerous artifacts (non-uniformity, dose rate dependence, film darkening kinetics, scanner artifacts) which require rigorous correction. TLD dosimetry techniques for both general radiotherapy applications[100,117] and reference-quality brachytherapy dosimetry[99,100] have been reviewed extensively.

28 HEBD report

V.C.2. Phantom material and energy response characterization For low-energy brachytherapy dosimetry, accurate knowledge of the atomic composition of the phantom is critical for proper results.[100] The TG-43U1 report allows use of either single-component high-purity industrial plastics or polyamine-based epoxy resin mixtures (e.g., commercial solid water), which can have somewhat variable atomic compositions in their makeup. Therefore, it is suggested that the composition be independently determined by elemental composition assays of representative samples. In all cases, phantom-to-liquid-water corrections (based upon MC calculations) must be applied to the measurements. For 192Ir and other high-energy sources, absorbed-dose water equivalence is less dependent on phantom composition,[103] so that commercial plastics such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) as well as single-component resin mixtures can be used with lower correction uncertainties due to knowledge of their composition. Experimentally, Meli et al.[103] found that PMMA, polystyrene, and Solid WaterTM introduced corrections ranging from –4% to +2% relative to liquid water at distances of 3 to 6 cm. MC calculations, simulating mono-energetic point sources embedded in 1 m radius phantoms composed of liquid or Solid Water, demonstrated that the latter introduced corrections of less than 5% at 10 cm distance for photon energies greater than 100 keV. A more recent MC study[118] of 192Ir phantom correction factors for cylindrical phantoms of PMMA, polystyrene, and Solid Water found that corrections depended on phantom dimensions as well as phantom media. For a phantom size of 20 cm diameter and height (typical for experimental purposes), correction factors

were <4% at distances for r 10 cm. For larger 40 cm phantoms, larger corrections (up to 6% at 10 cm for PMMA) were noted. Industrial plastic phantoms (PMMA, polystyrene, or polycarbonate) for high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry are recommended. Single-component resin phantoms are recommended and should be accompanied by the appropriate phantom to water correction factors or should include an estimate of the uncertainties associated with the non-water equivalence of the phantom for sources with average photon energies greater than 0.2 MeV, but should be avoided for average energies between 0.05 and 0.2 MeV unless validated by elemental composition assays. While atomic composition measurements are mostly unnecessary in this energy range, density measurements should be performed. MC-based medium corrections (phantom–to–liquid water conversion factors based upon the assumed composition and actual geometry and density of the experimental phantom) should be used. However, the dosimetry investigator should also consider the dependence of detector response as a function of source distance within the phantom due to differences in response between the phantom and reference medium, i.e., liquid water. The TG-43U1 report recommended the experimental dosimetry formalism introduced by Williamson and Meigooni,[119] which has been updated[100] and whose notation is used below. An

important correction factor is the relative energy response correction, E(Q0, G0 Qref, Gref, r;Gexp), which accounts for the difference in detector sensitivity between the megavoltage photon beam used to calibrate the detector and the brachytherapy source irradiation geometry. G0, Gref, and Gexp are vectors corresponding to the energy-response correction factors associated with measurements taken during the calibration setup, the reference geometry (Gref = unbounded water phantom with point


detectors) and the source irradiation setup (e.g., Gexp = (25 cm)3 PMMA phantom, (1 × 1 × 1) mm3 TLD-100 detectors), respectively. Q0, Qexp, and Qref denote the corresponding spectra in these irradiation geometries. The relative energy response correction can be factored into three separate corrections:[100]

E Q0 ,G0 Qref ,Gref , r;Gexp( ) =kbq

rel Q0 Qexp ; M0( ) f rel Q0 ,G0 Qexp ,Gexp ,r( )pphant,wat Qexp ,Gexp Qref ,Gref ;r( )

, (7)

where the intrinsic relative energy response correction is given by:

kbqrel Q0 Qexp ; M( )

kbq M,Q0( )

kbq M,Qexp( )=

M0 Ddet( ) r,Qexp ,Gexp( )M0 Ddet( ) Q0 ,G0( )

, (8)

where M is the detector reading and Ddet is the mean absorbed dose to the active detector volume.

kbqrel Q0 Qexp ; M( ) describes the efficiency with which the detector-response mechanism transforms

energy imparted to its active collection volume by the brachytherapy radiation field into an observable response, relative to its efficiency in the calibration beam. The relative absorbed-dose energy dependence is given by

f rel Q0 ,G0 Qexp ,Gexp ,r( )f r,Q0 ,G0( )

f r,Qexp ,Gexp( )=

Ddet Dwat( ) r,Qexp ,Gexp( )Ddet Dmed0( ) Q0 ,G0( )

. (9)

f rel is that component of relative detector response which is due only to the efficiency with which the brachytherapy spectrum imparts energy to the active detector volume relative to the corresponding efficiency in the calibration beam, when both efficiencies are normalized to dose in medium in the absence of the detector. f rel includes the displacement and volume-averaging corrections. The dose-

measurement phantom correction factor, pphant,wat (Qexp, Gexp Qref, Gref;r), corrects for differences between the irradiation geometry used to perform the measurements and the reference geometry in which the final dose distribution is to be specified. As a ratio of geometric point doses in homogeneous media, it is independent of the detector geometry, composition, and underlying mechanism, and depends only on the reference and experimental phantom dimensions, composition, and positioning relative to other sources of scattered radiation near the measurement phantom.

The controversies surrounding the choice of kbqrel Q0 Qexp ; M( ) corrections for TLD

dosimetry of low-energy brachytherapy sources, where recent experiments suggest energy response correction factors ranging from 1.05 to 1.10, have been reviewed by Williamson and Rivard.[100]

While kbqrel values are closer to unity for high-energy brachytherapy sources, two recent publications

30 HEBD report

found anomalously high values of kbqrel = 1.018–1.038 for 137Cs relative to 60Co.[120,121] Overall energy-

response corrections for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources have been measured, but without result comparisons to MC calculated absorbed-dose energy-dependent factors. Because definitive factors

are not yet available, it is recommended that kbqrel be taken as unity for high-energy photon dosimetry,

while pphant,wat and f rel should be carefully calculated for the experimental geometry used. Without additional information, a k = 1 uncertainty of 3% may be assigned to the overall energy response correction factor. For radiochromic film, it is not clear whether or not dosimetrically significant energy response corrections exist. Based on a study of Model MD-55-2, Bohm et al.[104] concluded that f rel MC

accounted for measured E(Q0 Qref) values within 5%. On the other hand, Sutherland and Rogers[122] found relatively poor agreement between their MC calculations and previously reported measurements.[123,124] Since radiochromic film response is highly dependent upon film composition, and depends on a host of other factors, including temporal history and temperature,[125,126] it is recommended that this detector be used cautiously.

V.C.3. Specification of measurement methods Recommended methodologies for using TLD dosimetry in brachytherapy have been reviewed elsewhere.[99,100] All recommendations in section V.D.3 of the 2004 AAPM TG-43U1 report[2] should be followed for high-energy brachytherapy dosimetry. Careful correction for volume averaging, source and/or detector displacements, and phantom composition/size should be applied so that the final dose rates represent absorbed dose rates to water per unit SK at geometric points in an unbounded liquid water medium. The location of dose measurement points should be referenced to the geometric center of the active source core.

V.D. Methodological recommendations for Monte Carlo–based dosimetry Codes that have been widely used for high-energy source dosimetry include PTRAN, MCNP, GEANT4, PENELOPE, and EGSnrc. At the time of publication of this report, all these codes are based upon modern cross-section libraries and complex and accurate physics models to simulate transport of electrons and photons through complex media. All these codes have been benchmarked against experimental measurements or by code intercomparisons. For high-energy sources, collisional kerma approximates dose at distances from the source surface where electronic equilibrium is reached. However, electronic equilibrium at close distances from 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources is not reached, and beta and internal conversion electrons emerging from the source capsule require detailed electron transport if accurate dose rate estimates near the sources are required (section III.B). Errors exceeding 2% will occur if photon-only MC transport simulation is used to estimate dose for distances at or below 1.6, 3, and 7 mm for 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources, respectively.[28]


In general, the AAPM and ESTRO recommend that MC investigators utilize well-benchmarked codes for brachytherapy dosimetry studies intended to produce reference-quality dose rate distributions for clinical use. A benchmarked code is able to reproduce MC simulations comparable to those obtained by other codes validated experimentally or a code whose results have been validated experimentally. However, all investigators should assure themselves that they are able to reproduce previously published dose distributions for at least one widely used brachytherapy source model. The 2007 HEBD prerequisites[17] stated that MC transport codes should be able to support dose rate estimation with expanded uncertainties (k = 2) no greater than the 3% to 5% characteristic of the MC transport codes currently used for low-energy source dosimetry. Also, the 2007 report included methods to benchmark the MC calculation method. Agreement between the

MC results and the benchmark data should be within 2% for , 5% for gL(r), and 10% for F(r, ) within 5° from the source long axis.[17] Unlike for low-energy sources, the range of secondary electrons from high-energy sources will require electron transport at short distances.[28]

V.D.1. Specification of Monte Carlo calculation methods The nine points in the list in section V.E.1 of the TG-43U1 report[2] are applicable to high-energy sources with the following changes:

1. Limit consideration to emitted photon energies above 10 keV (for simulations in both water and in-air or in vacuo). Based on typical PDR/HDR source encapsulations, 10 keV should be an adequate cutoff and is commonly used in publications. A lower energy cutoff does not produce more accurate results for most dosimetry applications, but prolongs the calculation time required to achieve a fixed Type A uncertainty level (or prevents finer spatial resolution with associated volume averaging).

2. All photons emitted with an energy above the 10 keV cutoff must be included in dosimetry calculations. At least one publication has reported that high-energy photons with low emission probabilities can influence results significantly.[96] Therefore, reference spectra must be used in their entirety in MC simulations, i.e., NNDC reference spectra[20] must not have low-intensity lines removed.

3. If charged particle transport is simulated, the underlying transport algorithm should be described clearly, if only by reference. The quantity used to approximate dose (e.g., collisional kerma) or any variance reduction techniques should be clearly specified. Whether beta-ray and internal conversion electron transport is included, along with the initial beta spectrum used, should be specified.

V.D.2. Good practice for Monte Carlo calculations

1. Reference-quality absorbed dose rate to water distributions should be computed in liquid water in a phantom which approximates full scatter conditions characteristic of an unbounded phantom. For 192Ir, 137Cs, and 169Yb sources, a spherical phantom with radius R = 40 cm (or the

32 HEBD report

equivalent cylindrical phantom dimensions) should be used, while R = 80 cm is required for 60Co[29–31] sources.

2. A sufficient number of histories should be calculated to ensure that the dose rate per simulated

history d r0 , 0( ) and

kair d, 0( ) calculations for derivation of sK have Type A uncertainties (k

= 1) < 0.1% for distances 5 cm and Type A uncertainties (k = 1) < 0.2% for distances 10 cm. In evaluating sK, the confounding influence of contaminant low-energy photons below 10 keV (and contaminant electrons as well if charged-particle transport is simulated) should be

assessed and corrected for if necessary. By convention, kair d, 0( ) and sK must be specified in

dry air. 3. The influence of photon cross-section uncertainties on dose estimation accuracy has not been

comprehensively studied in the high-energy brachytherapy regime. Until careful studies demonstrate otherwise, TG-43U1 recommendations should be followed. This includes use of post-1980 cross-section libraries, preferably those equivalent to the current NIST XCOM database such as DLC-146 or EPDL97. Older cross-section libraries based on Storm and Israel data[127,128] must be avoided. Electron binding effects on coherent and incoherent scattering should be simulated using the form factor approximation. In the presence of high atomic number absorbers, atomic relaxation processes resulting in characteristic x-rays exceeding 10 keV should be simulated. Mass-energy absorption coefficients used to convert energy fluence into collisional kerma must be consistent with the interaction physics models and photon cross sections used for transport.

4. Collisional kerma and dose estimators (scoring tally)[129] and detector volumes should be chosen to limit volume-averaging artifacts to <0.1%. To minimize the impact of voxel size effects[130-132] while maintaining reasonable efficiency for track-length and analog estimators, maximum voxel sizes in Cartesian coordinates could be chosen in the following way: (0.1

mm)3 voxels for distances in the range of rsource < r 1 cm, (0.5 0.5 0.5) mm3 voxels for 1

cm < r 5 cm, (1 1 1) mm3 voxels for 5 cm < r 10 cm, and (2 2 2) mm3 voxels for

10 cm < r 20 cm, where r is defined as the distance from the center of the source. Rectilinear or toroidal voxels of similar radial dimensions should have similar volume-averaging effects.

5. Especially for photon sources in the 50 to 300 keV energy range, the manufacturer-reported dimensions of encapsulation and internal components should be verified through the use of physical measurements, transmission radiography, and autoradiography. For all sources, transmission radiography and pinhole radiography should be used to verify the active source dimensions and location relative to the physical source dimensions, and that the radioactivity is approximately uniformly distributed. The impact of internal source component mobility[133] on the dose distribution should be assessed.

6. Some MC studies consider the effect of electronic non-equilibrium conditions near a brachytherapy source, or the beta-ray contribution to the dose distribution near the source. In these cases, secondary electron transport should be simulated. To avoid inconsistencies and systematic errors in the results, the following precautions should be heeded. Because


brachytherapy simulations involve rather extreme conditions (very small detector thicknesses, low energies, etc.) that may invalidate the approximations upon which the charged particle transport algorithms are based, they may produce artifacts that are evident only in extreme cases but that are masked in other situations. The following precautions cover different aspects including physics models implemented in the codes and electron tracking techniques, among others: a. Usually, the simplest strategy is to perform test simulations starting with standard

simulation parameters recommended for the code under consideration, followed by other test runs that vary these parameters to study their influence on the final results.

b. Electron step size is a critical parameter that influences deposited doses in small geometry regions. It should be handled with care in each simulation and, if adjustable, parametric studies should be performed to demonstrate that the dosimetric results are not sensitive to this parameter choice.

c. Some multiple scattering (MS) theories place limits on the minimum number of mean collisions that must occur in each condensed history step for validity to be maintained. The existence of steep dose gradients at the distances of interest necessitates high spatial resolution for dose computation. Consequently, shells to score dose are very thin close to the source. The Molière MS minimum step size imposes a restriction on the spatial resolution of MC simulation. Care must be taken to maintain the dimension of the scoring region above this limit.[134] This limitation affects mainly codes derived from EGS4.

d. The user must be sure that the number of interactions in a voxel is large enough (a minimum of 10) for the result to be statistically well behaved.

e. Some codes handle boundary crossing algorithm corrections poorly while others generate artifact-free corrections. Switching to single-scattering mode near boundaries is the preferred solution. For example, Type-1 transport algorithms (MCNP, ITS, ETRAN), which use Goudsmit-Saunderson multiple-scattering formalism parameters, stopping powers, and energy-straggling corrections precalculated on a fixed logarithmically spaced energy-loss grid, are particularly subject to boundary crossing algorithm artifacts as media and detector interfaces truncate condensed history steps at arbitrary intermediate values. The influence of such partial steps cannot be recovered by interpolation of precalculated data. Chibani and Li[135] demonstrate that pre-2000 versions of MCNP-determined low-energy electron dose distributions were sensitive to choice of energy-indexing (boundary crossing algorithm interpolation scheme).

f. Variance reduction techniques are often implemented in the codes and although they are generally robust they should be used with care. In particular, the user is advised to check that results are unbiased.

V.E. Uncertainty analyses Both experimental and MC determinations of reference-quality single-source dose rate distributions should include formal uncertainty analyses that adhere to the methodology of NIST Technical Note 1297.[136] While a number of publications,[100,137] including the TG-43U1[2] and TG-

34 HEBD report

138[14] reports give detailed guidance on applying this methodology to low-energy brachytherapy, complete and rigorous uncertainty analyses for high-energy brachytherapy are generally lacking. However, extensive uncertainty analyses are given by Raffi et al.[41] for HDR 192Ir experimental and MC and Granero et al.[138] for HDR 192Ir MC simulations. These papers include both Type A and Type B uncertainties. These uncertainties are in agreement with those in the AAPM TG-138 report, and are over a factor of two lower than those in Table XII of the TG-43U1 report for low- and high-energy sources. While 169Yb has been considered by some manufacturers, the SK calibration uncertainties are still a matter of study and are of the order of 3% (k = 1). As similarly recommended in section V.D.3(10) and section V.E.1(9) of the AAPM TG-43U1 report for measurements and simulations of low-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy dosimetry studies, respectively, the AAPM recommends that high-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry investigators perform detailed uncertainty analyses in a manner similar to Raffi et al., and Granero et al., yet specific to the source model and conditions examined in their investigation.

V.F. Publication of dosimetry results As recommended by TG-43U1[2] and the HEBD prerequisites,[17] commercially distributed high-energy sources used in routine clinical practice should be supported by two independent dosimetry studies that adhere to the methodological recommendations of this report. As defined by TG-43U1, “independence” requires (a) that dosimetry investigators be free of affiliations or other conflicts of interest with the source vendor and (b) the two studies be scientifically independent of one another. The Li et al.[17] recommendations require that one study be experimental (usually TLD-based) and that the other be theoretical (MC). The studies must be published in the peer-reviewed literature. A technical note format is acceptable as is publishing the two independent studies in the same publication. Given publication length limitations, AAPM committees do not require that all expected or needed documentation and method description be included in the published paper. However, it must be either posted electronically with the online version of the paper or made available by the authors via a personal communication upon request. Conventionally encapsulated 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources require only a single MC-based study for comprehensive dose characterization. Some TPS algorithms correct the dose from full scatter to the clinical specific conditions, and require dosimetry parameter data based on full scatter conditions. For some of these TPS algorithms, it has been proposed that the primary- and scatter-component functions be obtained from TG-43–based dose rate tables and will need to be handled independently by the TPS dose calculation algorithm.[139]

V.G. The role of non–Monte Carlo computational tools in reference dosimetry Over the years, a variety of computational tools, in addition to MC simulation, have been proposed or even widely used for the determination of single-source dose distributions in the high-energy photon regime.


Heuristic analytical model algorithms were not introduced as dosimetry or dose-estimation tools, but as treatment-planning tools for computing more realistic and accurate dose distributions for clinical multi-source implants in the presence of tissue-composition and density heterogeneities, applicator shielding and attenuation, and inter-seed attenuation. Accelerated MC simulation codes[140] have also been adapted for clinical dose computation. The potential for these innovations in clinical dose computation has been reviewed by Rivard et al.[33] and is the subject of the active AAPM Task Group 186. Prior to community-wide acceptance of the 1995 AAPM TG-43 report, nearly every general-purpose brachytherapy planning system utilized the 1D path-length or Sievert model to generate single-source dose distributions around encapsulated line sources such as intracavitary brachytherapy tubes. Comparisons with MC simulation demonstrate that with properly selected input parameters and realistic modeling of the source geometry, accurate results (2% transverse axis and 5% longitudinal axis differences) can be achieved for 137Cs tubes and needles.[57,141] However, for lower energy sources, including LDR 192Ir seed and HDR 192Ir sources, accurate modeling of 2D anisotropy corrections cannot be achieved.[142] Simple extensions of the Sievert model can restore accuracy in many cases, such as by separating primary and scatter components and modeling the latter as an isotropic distribution.[142,143] However, comparisons between benchmark calculations from MC or analytical methods such as the Sievert integral are required to ensure dose prediction accuracy for new source designs. Hence, 1D path-length models are not endorsed by this report for estimation of reference-quality dose distributions for any category of high-energy sources. A number of more sophisticated scatter separation algorithms, which involve one-, two-, or even three-dimensional integration of the scatter dose distribution over the implant geometry have been proposed.[73,144–147] Closely related are superposition/convolution algorithms[148] of which the most fully developed is Carlsson-Tedgren’s[149,150] brachytherapy adaptation of the external-beam collapsed cone approach. As with the simpler Sievert-style algorithms, these approaches require significant fine tuning and validation against more definitive MC simulations to avoid excessive systematic dose computation errors, and thus are not acceptable as substitutes for MC simulation for estimation of reference-quality single-source dose distributions. A more empirical scatter-separation method was introduced[151] for CT-based planning for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy; the primary and scatter dose distributions for each dwell position are calculated first as if the patient is an infinite water phantom. Corrections for photon attenuation, scatter, and spectral variations along medium- or low-Z heterogeneities are made according to the radiological paths determined by ray tracing. The scatter dose is then scaled by a correction factor that depends on the distances between the points of interest, the body contour, and the source position. Dose calculations were evaluated for phantoms with tissue and lead (Pb) inserts, as well as patient plans for head-and-neck, esophagus, and balloon breast brachytherapy treatments. PTRAN_CT-based MC calculations were used as the reference dose distributions. For the breast patient plan, the TG-43 formalism overestimated the target volume receiving the prescribed dose by about 4% and skinD0.1cc by 9%, whereas the analytical and MC results agreed within 0.4%.

36 HEBD report

Deterministic transport equation solvers, most commonly discrete ordinates methods simulations, have also been investigated for their potential use in brachytherapy planning applications.[152,153] A Grid-Based Boltzmann Solver (GBBS) was introduced as a supported option in a commercially available brachytherapy planning system.[154,155] In contrast to the more sophisticated heuristic algorithms [class 1(b) above], GBBS directly solves the underlying Boltzmann transport equation on a systematically discretized seven-dimensional phase-space mesh. Because GBBS algorithms use random sampling on a very limited basis if at all, GBBS results do not suffer from statistical noise and very slow convergence rates. However, many application-specific parameters need to be optimized, including density of the angular mesh, energy group structure and weighting functions, as well as spatial mesh geometry and angular-flux interpolation technique. Inadequate optimization can lead to substantial systematic errors and artifacts, e.g., ray effects. While very promising tools for radiotherapy planning purposes, inherently more accurate MC benchmarks are required for GBBS tuning and validation. Hence, GBBS and related techniques[156] are not suitable reference-quality dosimetry tools. In summary, of the computational tools developed to date, only MC simulation is an acceptable method for estimating reference-quality dosimetry parameters. This is a consequence of the fundamental mathematical nature of MC simulation, which yields a statistically imprecise, but exact first-principles solution of the transport equation. While statistical noise in some settings can be a limiting problem, in the context of brachytherapy reference dosimetry it can be eliminated as a practical issue through long run times, efficient sampling techniques, or proper selection of variance-reduction strategies.[100] Although approximations are often used within MC codes, the ideal of convergence to an unbiased solution of the Boltzmann equation is approximated to a high degree of accuracy in practice. Residual errors, e.g., volume averaging, are straightforward to correct or eliminate using modern codes. In contrast, both deterministic heuristic and transport-solution algorithms, while free of statistical uncertainty, are always subject to complex, geometry-dependent patterns of systematic error.


VI. RECOMMENDED DOSIMETRY DATASETS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES

Recommended consensus datasets for high-energy sources have been obtained for sources that were commercially available as of January 2010. Data are presented according to the AAPM TG-

43U1 formalism, with upgraded interpolation and extrapolation techniques in Table III for F(r, ) and g(r). Additionally, the radial and angular ranges of the datasets are chosen to accurately represent the dosimetric characteristics given linear interpolation by TPS. A common mesh was introduced for gL(r), and the mesh of the selected publication has been kept for F(r, ). For each source model the source is described and consensus datasets are presented (Appendix A). For TPS that use the TG-43 dose-calculation formalism and permit user input of dosimetry parameters, the medical physicist should enter the dosimetry parameters and check the accuracy of the dose calculation.[13] These tasks should be well documented. For some TPS, dosimetry parameters are entered by the manufacturer, without the possibility of user modification. In these cases, users should verify the correct entry and document these commissioning findings before releasing the TPS for clinical use. Clinical implementation of these datasets should follow the recommendations included in section VI of the TG-43U1 report.[2] A medical physicist should implement the dose calculation data and techniques recommended by this report on the TPS and quantitatively assess the influence of this action on dose delivery. In cases where data are introduced as coefficients in an equation, [e.g., a polynomial function for gL(r)], it is necessary to evaluate the quality of the fit over the intended calculation range. Users must verify that the TPS follows the TG-43U1 formalism, and should also document the TPS methods for interpolation and extrapolation (applying the recommendations introduced in TG-43U1S1[3] and also more specifically in this report) of dose calculations within and beyond the range provided dosimetry. The dose rates calculated by the TPS from a single source should be compared with the dose rate distribution derived from the tabulated consensus values presented in this report. To facilitate this comparison, dose rate tables in a Cartesian coordinate system have been included as has been recommended previously by the AAPM (TG-40,[157] TG-

53,[158] TG-56,[13] and TG-43U1.[2]) This comparison should yield agreement within ±2% over all angles and over the range of radial distances commissioned. Discrepancies exceeding 2% should be documented and critically examined since better agreement is expected.

VI.A. AAPM-RPC Source Registry In 2001, the RTOG approached the RPC with the request to make available a list of brachytherapy sources that met appropriate criteria and could be considered usable for clinical trials. The RPC collaborated with the AAPM, which had issued a report entitled “Dosimetric prerequisites for routine clinical use of new low-energy photon interstitial brachytherapy sources” by Williamson et al.[16] Sources that met these dosimetric prerequisites were judged to be sufficiently well characterized, have adequate traceability to national standards, and be manufactured under processes

38 HEBD report subjected to appropriate quality control standards. Shortly afterwards, the joint AAPM/RPC Source Registry was established on the RPC web page and has been maintained ever since. Institutions considering enrolling patients in clinical trials sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) that involve low-energy seeds must use sources that are listed on the Registry. The Registry includes tables of dosimetry parameters that have been compiled from peer-reviewed publications and issued as consensus data deemed suitable by the AAPM for clinical use. Development of a new RTOG protocol requiring use of high-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources prompted expansion of the Registry in 2009 to include such sources. For high-energy sources to be included in the Registry, there must be compliance with the HEBD prerequisites.[17] The BTSC and BSR have identified a number of high-energy sources that meet these prerequisites. In response, the RPC has added these sources to the Registry. The differences in radionuclide characteristics stimulated some changes in the requirements between low- and high-energy photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. Whereas source manu-facturers must submit low-energy sources at least annually to NIST or other primary standards labs for SK calibration consistency, a calibration comparison frequency of 2 years for 60Co, 137Cs, and 192Ir sources is recommended. Vendors of sources containing these high-energy radionuclides should comply with this comparison frequency, and are monitored for compliance by the AAPM and ESTRO. For 192Ir, 137Cs, and 60Co sources of conventional design, the Registry only requires a single published dataset. This must be a MC study of dose to water in water medium as stated in section IV. A special case exists for orphaned sources: those no longer commercially available, but still in regular use in hospitals. These must be sources with long half-lives and suitable dose rates that consequently comprise only certain models of 137Cs and 60Co sources. In the case of these sources, there is no manufacturer available to submit the Registry application forms. For these orphaned sources, the AAPM and RPC have developed an approved alternative procedure for Registry application: a hospital that wishes to participate in a clinical trial that involves brachytherapy sources not currently posted on the Registry may submit the application, listing the dosimetric studies available and the dosimetry parameters to be used for treatment planning. The hospital must also describe their method of source strength traceability for review by the RPC to assure the correct calibration of the sources. In the special case of source trains, in which individual sources cannot be removed for calibration with a well chamber, the hospital may describe a method of calibration at a distance in a phantom, in accordance with calibration procedures described in the peer-reviewed literature. As extensively described by Rivard et al.,[159] while posting of a source model on the Registry does not imply existence of an AAPM-endorsed consensus dataset, clinical use of Registry-posted data represents a reasonable choice for medical physicists, the source vendor, and clinical trial investigators for implementing newly marketed seed products. AAPM consensus datasets are typically issued within 3 years after posting on the Registry, and then included on the RPC website.

In the absence of AAPM-issued consensus datasets, ESTRO manages a database for brachytherapydosimetry parameters and other related data http://www.estro.org/about/governance-organisation/committees-activities/tg43. For low-energy LDR brachytherapy sources for which AAPM-endorsed con-sensus datasets are available, ESTRO recommends adopting these datasets and the ESTRO website

http://www.estro.org/about/governance-organisation/committees-activities/tg43


includes a link to the Registry website. A similar policy is once consensus data are published.

VI.B. Consensus datasets Sources meeting the 2007 AAPM prerequisites[17] are considered in this section. The

publications pertaining to each source have been evaluated following the guidelines described in

section IV. Details about source characteristics including source schematic diagram, criteria for

selecting consensus data among those published, and a brief discussion about the publications related

to each source are available in Appendix A. This section presents a list of sources.

VI.B.1. HDR 192Ir sources The HDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources for which consensus datasets have been obtained are as follows:

a. Nucletron model mHDR-v1 (classic) source b. Nucletron model mHDR-v2 source c. Varian Medical Systems model VS2000 source d. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model Buchler source e. Varian Medical Systems model GammaMed HDR 12i source f. Varian Medical Systems GammaMed HDR Plus source g. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model GI192M11 source h. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model Ir2.A85-2 source i. SPEC Inc. model M-19 source j. Isodose Control model Flexisource.

VI.B.2. PDR 192Ir sources The PDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources for which consensus datasets have been obtained are as follows:

a. Varian Medical Systems model GammaMed PDR 12i source b. Varian Medical Systems model GammaMed PDR Plus source c. Nucletron model mPDR-v1 source

Another online venue for brachytherapy dosimetry parameter data is at Carleton University:http://www.physics.carleton.ca/clrp/seed_database/. Data for this website includes results of MCsimulations for 125I, 103Pd, 192Ir, and 169Yb sources. A key difference between this site and the otherthree venues is that the data were derived from a common MC radiation transport code, Brachy-Dose.[132] In addition to the TG-43 dosimetry parameters, dose rate tables for high-energy sourcesare also presented separately for primary, single-scattered, and multiple-scattered photons. For the192Ir sources, these datasets have been evaluated in this report.

http://www.physics.carleton.ca/clrp/seed_database/

40 HEBD report

d. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model Ir2.A85-1 source. VI.B.3. LDR 192Ir sources The LDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources for which consensus datasets have been obtained are as follows:

a. Best Industries model 81-01 seed b. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH 0.5 and 1.0 cm long wires.

VI.B.4. LDR 137Cs sources The LDR 137Cs brachytherapy sources for which consensus datasets have been obtained are as follows:

a. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model CSM3 source b. Isotope Product Laboratories model IPL source c. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model CSM11 source.

VI.B.5. HDR 60Co sources The HDR 60Co brachytherapy sources for which consensus datasets have been obtained are as follows:

a. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model GK60M21 source b. Eckert & Ziegler BEBIG GmbH model Co0.a86 source.

VI.C. Reference overview of sources without consensus datasets In addition to the sources enumerated in section VI.B for which consensus data have been produced, there are other sources that have been used in the past in clinical practice or are even still being used at the time of publication of this report. However, these sources were no longer commercially available as of January 2010, and consensus datasets are not issued. However, since there may be retrospective dosimetry trials involving these sources, and also to guide medical physicists still using them clinically, references are provided from which dosimetry data can be obtained (these are justified in Appendix B of the online report). Any manipulation of these datasets is the responsibility of the individual user or company. These sources are as follows:

a. LDR 137Cs: pellet, CSM2, CSM3-a, CDCS-J, 6500/6D6C, Gold-matrix series 67-800, CSM1, CDCS-M, CDC.K1-K3, CDC.K4, CDC 12015 to CDC 12035, and CDC.G and CDC.H

b. LDR 192Ir: Platinum-clad seed c. HDR 192Ir: Varian classic d. PDR 192Ir: Nucletron e. HDR 60Co: Ralstron Type-1, Type-2, and Type-3.


NOMENCLATURE

1D one-dimensional

2D two-dimensional

AAPM American Association of Physicists in Medicine

ADCL Accredited Dosimetry Calibration Laboratory

BRAPHYQS ESTRO BRAchytherapy PHYsics Quality assurance System

BSR Brachytherapy Source Registry (AAPM Working Group)

BTSC Brachytherapy Subcommittee (AAPM)

CF correction factor

CSDA continuous slowing down approximation

CT computed tomography

CTV clinical target volume

EC electron capture

ESTRO European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology

EXP experimental measurement

GBBS Grid-Based Boltzmann Solver

GBq gigabecquerel

HDR high dose rate

HEBD AAPM High Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry Working Group

IC internal conversion

ICWG Interstitial Collaborative Working Group

ISA inter-source attenuation

keV kiloelectron volt

LDR low dose rate

LEBD AAPM Low Energy Brachytherapy Source Dosimetry Working Group

LiF lithium fluoride

MBDCA Model-Based Dose Calculation Algorithms (working group)

42 HEBD report MC Monte Carlo

mCi millicurie

MCPT Monte Carlo Photon Transport

MeV megaelectronvolt

MRI magnetic resonance imaging

MS multiple scattering

NCI Natonal Cancer Institute

NIST U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology

NNDC National Nuclear Data Center

PDR pulsed dose rate

PMMA polymethyl methacrylate

POI points-of-interest

PSS primary and scatter dose separation

RAKR reference air-kerma rate

RPC Radiological Physics Center

RTOG Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (U.S.)

STP standard temperature pressure

TG-43 AAPM Task Group No. 43 brachytherapy dose calculation formalism

TG-43U1 2004 update to the TG-43 report

TG-43U1S1 2007 supplement to the 2004 AAPM TG-43U1 report

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter, generally composed of LiF (TLD-100)

TLS two length segmented method

TPS treatment planning system(s)

QA quality assurance

U The unit of air-kerma strength, equivalent to μGy m2 h–1 or cGy cm2 h–1.

Angle subtended by P(r, ) and the two ends of the brachytherapy source active

length. As used in the line-source approximation, has units of radians.


d Distance to the point of measurement from the source center in its transverse-plane. Typically measured in air or in vacuo. Units of cm.

d r0 , 0( ) The dose rate per history estimated using Monte Carlo methods at the reference

position.

D r,( ) Dose rate in water at P(r, ). The dose rate is generally specified with units

cGy h–1 and the reference dose rate, D r0 , 0( ), is specified at P(r0, 0) with units

of cGy h–1.

Energy cutoff parameter used for air-kerma rate evaluation, with units of keV.

F(r, ) 2D anisotropy function describing the ratio of dose rate at radius r and angle around the source, relative to the dose rate at r0 = 1 cm and 0 = 90° when removing geometry function effects. Dimensionless units.

GX(r, ) Geometry function approximating the influence of the radionuclide physical distribution on the dose distribution. GX(r, ) is calculated by the following:

GP r,( ) = r 2 point-source approximation

GL r,( ) = Lr sinif 0

line-source approximation

r2 L2 4( )1

if = 0

with units of cm–2.

g(r) Radial dose function describing the dose rate at distance r from the source in the transverse plane relative to the dose rate at r0 = 1 cm. Dimensionless units.

gL(r) Radial dose function, determined under the assumption that the source can be represented as a line segment. Dimensionless units.

gP(r) Radial dose function, determined under the assumption that the source can be represented as a point. Dimensionless units.

CONg(r) radial dose function derived from consensus dataset. Dimensionless units.

k d( ) Air-kerma rate in vacuo, per history as estimated using Monte Carlo methods,

due to photons of energy greater than .

K d( ) Air-kerma rate in vacuo on the source transverse plane due to photons of

energy greater than , with units of cGy h–1.

44 HEBD report

Dose rate constant in water, with units of μGy h–1 U–1. is defined as the dose rate at P(r0, 0) per unit SK.

CON Notation indicating that the reported value of is the consensus value determined by the AAPM from published data, with units of cGy h-1 U-1.

EXP Notation indicating that the reported value of was determined by experimental measurement.

MC Notation indicating that the reported value of was determined using Monte Carlo calculations.

L Active length of the source (length of the radioactive portion of the source)

with units of cm.

Leff The effective active length of the source. Leff is used for brachytherapy sources containing uniformly spaced multiple radioactive components. Leff = S N, where N represents the number of discrete pellets contained in the source with center-to-center spacing S.

P(r, ) Point-of-interest, positioned at distance r and angle from the geometric center of the radionuclide distribution.

r The distance from the source center to P(r, ), with units of cm.

r0 The reference distance, generally 1 cm.

sK The air-kerma strength per history estimated using Monte Carlo methods.

SK Air-kerma strength: the product of the air-kerma rate and the square of the distance d to the point of specification from the center of the source in its transverse-plane. SK is expressed in units of μGy m2 h–1, a unit also identified by U.

The polar angle between the longitudinal axis of the source and the ray from the active source center to the calculation point, P(r, ).

0 The reference polar angle, generally 90° or /2 radians.


APPENDIX A

DETAILED DOSIMETRY DATASETS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHOTON-EMITTING BRACHYTHERAPY SOURCES

The general 2D dose rate equation from the 1995 TG-43 formalism is retained:

D r,( ) = SK

GL r,( )

GL r0 , 0( )gL r( )F r,( ), (10)

where r denotes the distance from the center of the active source to the point of interest, r0 denotes

the reference distance which is specified to be r0 = 1 cm in that protocol, and denotes the polar

angle specifying the point of interest, P(r, ), relative to the source longitudinal axis. The reference

angle, 0, defines the source transverse plane, and is specified to be 0 = 90° (Figure 1). In clinical practice, an HDR-PDR source is fixed to a cable, such that its position and orientation are easily identified. So, we have chosen as Z- and Y-axis the longitudinal and transverse axes, respectively. The origin is taken as the center of the active part, with the positive Z-axis directed through the source tip. In the case of LDR 137Cs sources, the source tip must be defined for each source model.

Figure 1. Reference polar coordinate system for high-energy photon-emitting sources adapted from the 1995 TG-43 report.[1]

The TG-43 formalism applies to sources with cylindrically symmetric dose distributions with respect to the source longitudinal axis. HDR-PDR sources discussed in this report can be accurately represented by a capsule and a cable, and consequently are asymmetric with respect to the transverse plane. In the case of LDR sources, 137Cs sources are asymmetric while 192Ir seeds and wires are symmetric with respect to the transverse axis. In the latter case, consensus datasets presented in this section assume that dose distributions are symmetric with respect to the transverse plane, i.e., that radioactivity distributions to either side of the transverse plane are mirror images of one another. For

46 HEBD report

the sources included in this report, only the line-source approximation used for the geometry function applies. Before using data in this section, please read section III.B to be aware of extrapolation methods used for some datapoints in the tables. A.1. High Dose Rate 192Ir sources A.1.1. mHDR-v1 (Nucletron) Source Description

This microSelectron HDR source was introduced in 1991 by Nucletron (Veenendaal, The

Netherlands). The radioactive source (10 Ci or 41 103 U) consists of a 0.60 mm diameter by 3.5 mm long cylinder of pure iridium, which is encapsulated in an AISI 316L stainless steel capsule with an outer diameter of 1.1 mm and a spherical distal end with a 0.55 mm radius of curvature. The distance from the physical source tip to the distal face of the active core tip is 0.35 mm. A schematic of the source is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Nucletron mHDR-v1 source.[47]

Publications

Muller-Runkel and Cho[160] performed anisotropy measurements in polystyrene and air using TLDs at radial distances r = 1 cm to 10 cm at polar angles restricted, however, to ±45° with respect to the long axis of the source. Williamson and Li[47] used the Monte Carlo Photon-Transport (MCPT) code to calculate 2D dose rate distributions and also tabulated their published data in the Interstitial Collaborative Working Group (ICWG) and TG-43 formalism formats. This code simulates photoelectric absorption, followed by K-shell and L-shell characteristic x-ray emission, pair production, and coherent and incoherent scattering. The photon cross-section library DLC-99 (HUGO)[161] was used. The primary photon spectrum for 192Ir was that of Glasgow and Dillman.[162] The photon cutoff energy was not indicated. Since their code did not model transport and scattering of secondary electrons, they calculated the collisional kerma rate (using either the next-flight or exponential track-


length estimator) and converted to dose rate by normalizing the data to air-kerma strength per unit contained activity. Air-kerma rates were calculated for distances ranging from 5 to 100 cm along the transverse source bisector with the source inmersed in a 5 m sphere of dry air. The 2D dose rate was calculated at approximately 500 points in a 30 cm water sphere. For transverse axis data, dose rates were calculated at distances ranging from 0.1 cm to 14 cm. To obtain the 2D anisotropy function, they used a variable grid of 70 polar angles at 6 distances from 0.25 cm up to 5 cm. The standard deviation of the mean (k = 1) for total dose ranged from 0.5% (near the source) to 2% (far from the

source). They deduced a MC estimate of 1.115 cGy h–l U–l ± 0.5%. Observe that in this paper polar

angle is defined as 180° – (Fig. 1). TLD, diode, and MC dosimetry of this source was published by Kirov et al.[94] They measured the 2D dose rate distribution around the source and used the results to validate MC simulations by Williamson and Li.[47] TLDs in a solid-water phantom were used to measure the transverse-axis dose

rates for 0.5 r 10 cm and the polar dose rate profiles at 1.5 cm, 3 cm, and 5 cm distances from the source. At close distances, 7 mm to 40 mm from the HDR source, they performed transverse axis dose rate measurements with an Si diode in water. Agreement between MC photon transport absolute dose rate calculations[47] and measurements was, on average, within 5%. From the transverse-axis

experimental data, they deduced a value for the dose rate constant of 1.14 cGy h–l U–1 ± 5%.

Anctil et al.[163] made TLD measurements in a polystyrene phantom of size (30 30 16.5)

cm3 using 1.0 mm 6 mm LiF rods calibrated in a 6 MV linac beam and having a measurement

precision of 3%. Approximately 7 cGy was delivered to each TLD position in the phantom. Measurements were repeated 5 times except at the reference position, where they were repeated 24 times using bilateral TLD placement to minimize source positioning error in the transverse direction. A distance-dependent photon energy response correction was made using factors taken from Meigooni et al.[164] TG-43 parameters were obtained using a line source approximation for the

geometry function, with L = 0.35 cm. was (1.13 ± 0.03) cGy h–1 U–1. The radial dose function was obtained over the distance range 1.0 cm to 10.0 cm in 1.0 cm steps, and the 2D anisotropy function

was obtained on a polar grid sampling the same radial points and an angular range from 0° to 170° in

10° steps. Karaiskos et al.[49] performed MC and TLD studies of the source using spherical water phantoms with R = 10 cm to 50 cm. Analytical tracking was performed for every primary photon initiated in a random position and emitted in a random direction within the source. Primary and secondary photons were sampled individually in direct analogy to the main processes, namely photoabsorption and coherent and incoherent scattering. The tracking and interactions of photons were based on up-to-date and self-consistent total, partial, and differential cross sections and the procedure outlined by Chan and Doi[165] for the sampling of coherent and incoherent scattering. The photon spectrum and cutoff energies used were not indicated. The electron binding energy of the scattering atom was taken into account in the incoherent scattering process. For electrons, the continuous slowing down approximation (CSDA) was followed. The calculation of energy

48 HEBD report

deposition was performed either directly from the electron energy deposition within the voxel volume or from the photon energy fluence. For the energies considered, both methods gave results within statistical uncertainties. The results presented were generated using the second method yielding statistical uncertainties <1%. The 30 cm diameter phantom was divided into discrete concentric spherical shells of 1 mm thickness, each split into angular intervals of up to 2°. In these voxels, quantities such as the number and kind of interactions, the energy transferred to electrons by primary and/or secondary interactions, photon spectra, as well as the primary, scattered and total energy deposition were scored. Using these quantities, absorbed dose, air kerma, water kerma, dose anisotropy function, and radial dose function can be calculated for all voxels in a single run. They ascertained that phantom dimensions significantly affected g(r) near phantom boundaries where deviations of up to 25% were observed. They also did not observe significant differences in the 2D

anisotropy function F(r, ) for the different values of R. Radial dose functions, dose rate constant, and 2D anisotropy functions, utilized in the TG-43 dose estimation formalism, were calculated. In addition, measurements of anisotropy functions using LiF TLD-100 rods were performed in a

polystyrene (30 30 30) cm3 phantom to support their MC calculations using the same phantom size. The energy dependence of LiF TLD response was investigated over the whole range of measurement distances and angles. TLD measurements and MC calculations are in agreement with

each other and agree with published data. They deduced a value of = (1.116 ± 0.006) cGy h–1 U–1.

They provided gL(r) (L = 0.35 cm) and F(r, ) for a spherical phantom with R = 15 cm. Observe that

in this paper polar angle is defined as 180° – (Fig. 1) Papagiannis et al.[90] used their own MC simulation (the same code used by Karaiskos et al.[49]) to calculate the gamma dose rate distribution in water around this source. The 192Ir source photon spectrum from Glasgow and Dillman[162] was used. The dose component due to the beta spectrum of 192Ir was evaluated. The water kerma approximation was utilized and results were presented for points at transverse distances greater than 1 mm from the source. The source was centrally positioned in a 30 cm diameter spherical water phantom. The phantom sphere was divided into discrete concentric spherical shells of 0.025 cm thickness up to r = 0.5 cm and 0.1 cm thickness thereafter,

each split into angular intervals of 1° with respect only to . The particle streaming function as

described in Karaiskos et al.[89] was used. They reported = 1.108 cGy h–1 U–1±0.13%. Numerical values of the radial dose function and anisotropy functions were not provided. Taylor and Rogers[139] used BrachyDose,[132] a brachytherapy user code for EGSnrc,[166] to perform an exhaustive dosimetric study of all HDR and PDR 192Ir and 169Yb sources available at the time of publication. For the transport of photons, Rayleigh scattering, bound Compton scattering, photoelectric absorption, and fluorescent emission of characteristic x-rays were all simulated. Photon cross sections from the XCOM database were used and mass-energy absorption coefficients were calculated using the EGSnrc user-code “g.” The incident 192Ir spectrum used was taken from work by Duchemin and Coursol,[167] while the 169Yb spectrum was the simplified spectrum presented by Medich et al.[5] The photon cutoff energy was set to 1 keV for all dose-to-water calculations. Dose calculations were performed scoring kerma using a track-length estimator in a water cube of side


80 cm surrounding the source and considering a length of cable equal to those used previously by other authors for the same source. To minimize the impact of voxel size effects while maintaining

reasonable efficiency, voxel sizes were chosen in the following way: (0.1 0.1 0.1) mm3 voxels

for distances in the range of rsource < r 1 cm, (0.5 0.5 0.5) mm3 voxels for 1 cm < r 5 cm,

(1 × 1 1) mm3 voxels for 5 cm < r 10 cm, and (2 2 2) mm3 voxels for 10 cm < r 20 cm, where r is defined as the distance from the center of the source. The magnitude of uncertainty introduced by voxel size effects is typically less than 0.25%.[132] Calculations of the air kerma per history were made in vacuo, thereby avoiding the need to correct for attenuation by air. The mass energy absorption coefficients for air used in this calculation were calculated with the composition

recommended by TG-43U1. Air kerma times d 2 per history was calculated in a (10 10 0.05) cm3 voxel located 100 cm from the source along the transverse axis and then corrected to give the air kerma times d 2 per history at a point (assuming an isotropic point source).[132] Low-energy photons emitted from the source encapsulation were suppressed in the air-kerma calculations by discarding all photons with energies less than 10 keV. The radial dose function was obtained using a line source geometry function over a radial range r = [0.2 to 1(0.1), 1 to 2 (0.25), 2 to 5(0.5), 5 to 20(1)] cm. It was fit with a 5th order polynomial, and alternatively with a modified polynomial, over the full range.

The 2D anisotropy function was obtained over the same radial range and an angular range = 0° to 3°(1°), 3° to 7°(2°), 10°, 12°, 15° to 165°(5°), 168°, 170°, 173°, 177° to 180°(1°). Datasets for all sources studied are avalaible online (http://www.physics.carleton.ca/clrp/seed_database/). For the

mHDR-v2 source they provided = (1.117 ± 0.002) cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

The four MC studies mentioned above[47,49,90,168] derived very close values of and their

average value was taken as the consensus value: CON = 1.116 cGy h–1 U–1 (Table IV). The TLD measurements[163] and the MC results[47,49] for the 30 cm diameter phantom agreed within uncertainites. The MC radial dose function data from Karaiskos et al.[49] and Williamson and Li[47] were converted to unbounded ones as explained in section III.A to be compared with the corresponding data of Taylor and Rogers.[168] Unbounded radial dose data by Williamson and Li and Taylor and Rogers are very close to each other, while the correponding data from Karaiskos et al., are slightly higher. Because the Taylor and Rogers data present a step at r = 1 cm, the data from Williamson and Li (unbounded) are selected as CONgL(r) (Table V), removing the published data at r = 0.1 cm because electronic disequilibrium exists and kerma was scored instead of absorbed dose. The comparison of the anisotropy results from the three MC studies[47,49,168] shows good agreement (differences of less than 1% except at r = 0.25 cm and at small angles where differences are up to 6%). Moreover, they agree within uncertainities with the TLD data of Anctil et al.[163] Because the

data of Taylor and Rogers present the best mesh in both r and , these data are recommended as

CONF(r, ) (TableVI).

50 HEBD report

Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table VII).

Table IV. Dose rate constant for HDR 192Ir sources.

Source Name (Manufacturer) CON

[cGy h–1 U–1]

Statistical uncertainty

(k = 1) CON /GL(r0, 0)

[cGy cm2 h–1 U–1]

mHDR-v1 (Nucletron) 1.116 0.9% 1.127

mHDR-v2 (Nucletron) 1.109 1.1% 1.121

VS2000 (Varian) 1.100 0.6% 1.123

Buchler (E&Z BEBIG) 1.117 0.4% 1.119

GammaMed HDR 12i (Varian) 1.118 0.4% 1.129

GammaMed HDR Plus (Varian) 1.117 0.4% 1.128

GI192M11 (E&Z BEBIG) 1.110 0.4% 1.121

Ir2.A85-2 (E&Z BEBIG) 1.109 1.2% 1.120

M-19 (SPEC) 1.114 0.2% 1.125

Flexisource (Isodose Control) 1.113 1.0% 1.124

Table V. Radial dose function values for HDR sources. Interpolated/extrapolated data are boldface/underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. In [brackets] are the corrected

values from bounded to unbounded geometry.

gL(r)

Nucletron Nucletron Varian E&Z BEBIG Varian Varian E&Z BEBIG E&Z BEBIG SPEC Isodore Control

mHDR-v1 mHDR-v2 VS2000 Buchler GammaMed HDR 12i GammaMed HDR Plus GI192M11 Ir2.A85-2 M-19 Flexisource

r [cm] L = 0.35 cm L = 0.35 cm L = 0.5 cm L = 0.13 cm L = 0.35 cm L = 0.35 cm L = 0.35 cm L = 0.35 cm L = 0.35 cm L = 0.35 cm

0.00 [0.991] 1.276 0.986 1.023 0.992 0.998 0.990 0.990 0.993 0.991

0.06 1,276

0.08 1,199

0.10 1,110

0.15 1,018

0.20 [0.991] 1,001 0.986 1.023 0.992 0.998

0.25 [0.992] 0.995 0.991 1.018 0.992 0.997 0.990 0.990 0.993 0.991

0.50 [0.997] 0.997 0.997 1.002 0.994 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.997

0.75 [0.999] 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1.5 [1.002] 1,003 1.005 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.001 1.002

2 [1.004] 1,005 1.010 1.004 1.006 1.006 1.004 1.004 1.005 1.004

3 [1.006] 1,008 1.012 1.008 1.008 1.006 1.005 1.005 1.008 1.005

4 [1.006] 1,007 1.013 1.007 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.003

5 [1.001] 1,003 1.011 1.002 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

6 [0.993] 0.996 1.003 0.995 0.991 0.993 0.992 0.991 0.994 0.991

8 [0.970] 0.972 0.982 0.971 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.969 0.968

10 [0.934] 0.939 0.949 0.941 0.936 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.939 0.935


Table VI. F(r, ) for the Nucletron mHDR-v1 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10 0 0.683 0.683 0.664 0.626 0.634 0.655 0.677 0.697 0.743 0.776 1 0.683 0.683 0.664 0.624 0.638 0.661 0.683 0.704 0.746 0.779 2 0.682 0.682 0.663 0.625 0.646 0.669 0.691 0.713 0.754 0.784 3 0.677 0.677 0.664 0.637 0.656 0.681 0.701 0.722 0.762 0.791 5 0.683 0.683 0.675 0.658 0.679 0.701 0.719 0.738 0.775 0.799 7 0.704 0.704 0.697 0.684 0.702 0.724 0.740 0.760 0.790 0.814

10 0.738 0.738 0.733 0.722 0.739 0.759 0.773 0.789 0.816 0.835 12 0.762 0.762 0.758 0.748 0.764 0.780 0.792 0.807 0.830 0.849 15 0.798 0.798 0.793 0.783 0.796 0.811 0.821 0.833 0.851 0.865 20 0.845 0.845 0.842 0.836 0.844 0.855 0.862 0.871 0.884 0.894 25 0.885 0.885 0.880 0.871 0.880 0.888 0.891 0.897 0.908 0.915 30 0.910 0.910 0.906 0.898 0.906 0.912 0.915 0.918 0.928 0.930 35 0.931 0.931 0.928 0.921 0.927 0.932 0.936 0.941 0.945 0.948 40 0.952 0.952 0.947 0.936 0.943 0.948 0.948 0.953 0.955 0.956 45 0.962 0.962 0.959 0.953 0.958 0.962 0.962 0.966 0.968 0.968 50 0.971 0.971 0.969 0.965 0.968 0.971 0.972 0.975 0.977 0.975 55 0.984 0.984 0.976 0.971 0.977 0.980 0.979 0.980 0.982 0.983 60 0.989 0.989 0.983 0.978 0.984 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.989 0.990 65 0.992 0.992 0.988 0.986 0.989 0.991 0.989 0.993 0.996 0.993 70 0.995 0.995 0.994 0.991 0.993 0.996 0.994 0.995 0.997 0.995 75 0.997 0.997 0.995 0.993 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.997 0.999 0.996 80 0.998 0.998 1.000 0.995 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.003 1.000 0.999 85 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.995 0.998 0.999 1.001 1.003 1.002 1.000 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 95 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.994 0.999 1.003 1.001 1.002 1.001 1.001 100 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.993 0.998 1.001 1.001 1.002 0.999 0.999 105 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.991 0.996 0.999 0.999 1.001 1.000 0.999 110 0.995 0.995 0.993 0.990 0.993 0.994 0.993 0.993 0.994 0.993 115 0.993 0.993 0.990 0.985 0.988 0.991 0.992 0.993 0.992 0.991 120 0.989 0.989 0.986 0.979 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.988 0.988 0.986 125 0.984 0.984 0.978 0.973 0.978 0.981 0.981 0.983 0.983 0.984 130 0.970 0.970 0.969 0.967 0.969 0.973 0.971 0.975 0.975 0.975 135 0.962 0.962 0.959 0.954 0.958 0.963 0.962 0.964 0.965 0.965 140 0.950 0.950 0.946 0.939 0.945 0.949 0.950 0.954 0.956 0.958 145 0.934 0.934 0.930 0.922 0.927 0.932 0.934 0.937 0.942 0.946 150 0.913 0.913 0.908 0.898 0.905 0.911 0.914 0.920 0.926 0.931 155 0.884 0.884 0.878 0.867 0.875 0.883 0.887 0.894 0.902 0.908 160 0.820 0.820 0.822 0.827 0.836 0.846 0.853 0.863 0.876 0.886 165 0.758 0.758 0.761 0.767 0.780 0.795 0.806 0.816 0.839 0.854 168 0.708 0.708 0.712 0.720 0.736 0.755 0.769 0.785 0.811 0.832 170 0.661 0.661 0.666 0.678 0.701 0.723 0.740 0.757 0.789 0.810 173 0.592 0.592 0.599 0.614 0.643 0.670 0.690 0.712 0.753 0.782 175 0.556 0.556 0.563 0.578 0.609 0.638 0.660 0.685 0.731 0.762 177 0.538 0.538 0.545 0.558 0.586 0.616 0.642 0.666 0.714 0.750 178 0.531 0.531 0.538 0.551 0.576 0.606 0.632 0.659 0.707 0.744 179 0.536 0.536 0.541 0.550 0.570 0.597 0.624 0.649 0.700 0.739 180 0.534 0.534 0.539 0.548 0.567 0.595 0.621 0.647 0.700 0.738

52 HEBD report

Table VII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Nucletron mHDR-v1 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01662 0.01688 0.01716 0.01740 0.01763 0.01787 0.01784 0.01706 0.01558 0.01384 0.01204 0.01041

6 0.0223 0.0228 0.0232 0.0237 0.0241 0.0244 0.0242 0.0225 0.0200 0.01717 0.01457 0.01225

5 0.0315 0.0325 0.0334 0.0343 0.0348 0.0351 0.0343 0.0305 0.0259 0.0215 0.01756 0.01435

4 0.0481 0.0500 0.0519 0.0535 0.0543 0.0539 0.0510 0.0427 0.0339 0.0266 0.0209 0.01663

3 0.0829 0.0877 0.0926 0.0954 0.0958 0.0906 0.0812 0.0606 0.0442 0.0326 0.0245 0.01888

2 0.1809 0.1977 0.211 0.212 0.202 0.1699 0.1364 0.0857 0.0560 0.0386 0.0278 0.0208

1.5 0.321 0.358 0.377 0.359 0.322 0.242 0.1768 0.0998 0.0616 0.0412 0.0292 0.0216

1 0.728 0.842 0.809 0.677 0.542 0.340 0.224 0.1129 0.0664 0.0434 0.0303 0.0222

0.5 3.40 3.43 2.19 1.354 0.886 0.448 0.265 0.1225 0.0697 0.0448 0.0309 0.0225

0 3.92×108 15.61 4.33 1.966 1.116 0.500 0.282 0.1259 0.0708 0.0451 0.0311 0.0226

–0.5 2.76 3.43 2.20 1.357 0.886 0.448 0.265 0.1226 0.0698 0.0448 0.0309 0.0225

–1 0.637 0.820 0.806 0.678 0.542 0.341 0.223 0.1129 0.0666 0.0434 0.0303 0.0222

–1.5 0.284 0.336 0.372 0.357 0.322 0.242 0.1770 0.0997 0.0616 0.0413 0.0292 0.0216

–2 0.1617 0.1812 0.206 0.210 0.202 0.1700 0.1365 0.0857 0.0560 0.0385 0.0278 0.0208

–3 0.0753 0.0798 0.0878 0.0932 0.0945 0.0902 0.0810 0.0606 0.0442 0.0325 0.0245 0.01882

–4 0.0441 0.0458 0.0484 0.0514 0.0531 0.0534 0.0509 0.0426 0.0338 0.0266 0.0209 0.01660

–5 0.0293 0.0300 0.0311 0.0325 0.0337 0.0345 0.0340 0.0305 0.0259 0.0214 0.01754 0.01436

–6 0.0208 0.0212 0.0217 0.0224 0.0231 0.0239 0.0239 0.0224 0.01994 0.01718 0.01453 0.01225

–7 0.01561 0.01579 0.01609 0.01646 0.01686 0.01746 0.01760 0.01693 0.01556 0.01382 0.01205 0.01038

A.1.2. mHDR-v2 (Nucletron) Source Description

This microSelectron HDR source from Nucletron (up to 12 Ci or 4.9 104 U), also known as the mHDR-v2, consists of a pure iridium metal cylinder which is 3.6 mm long with a diameter of 0.65 mm. The outer capsule diameter and the capsule length are 0.90 mm and 4.5 mm, respectively. It is welded to a 200 mm long and 0.70 mm diameter woven steel cable. It was developed to allow the source to pass through smaller diameter (and curved) catheters than the v1 model. The mechanical design of this source is shown in Figure 3. Publications

The MC study data published by Daskalov et al.[93,169] have been distributed by Nucletron in its TPS. As in the mHDR-v1 model (Appendix A.1.1), these data were generated by the MCPT code with the DLC-99 (HUGO)[161] photon cross-sections library; 192Ir source photon spectrum from Glasgow and Dillman[162] with no electron emissions; photon-only transport (no electron transport was performed) with kerma rate at a geometric point calculated using either exponential track-length estimator or once-more collided flux estimator; air-kerma rate per unit contained activity was calculated in a dry air sphere 5 m in diameter, and linear corrections were used due to the buildup of scattered photons in air; the source was centrally positioned in a 30 cm diameter spherical water


phantom. Water-kerma rate was estimated at 600 positions from 0.1 cm r 14 cm; radial dose function was generated from 1 mm to 14 cm from the source; anisotropy functions were generated with 67 polar angles at distances of r = 0.25 cm, 0.5 cm, 1.0 cm, 2.0 cm, 3.0 cm, and 5.0 cm.They

reported = 1.108 cGy h–1 U–1 ± 0.13%.

Figure 3. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source.[93]

Papagiannis et al.[90] (Appendix A.1.1) reported = (1.109 ± 0.005) cGy h–1 U–1. Wang and Li[27] studied the dose rate distribution with MC methods up to radial distances of 1 cm, accounting for the charged particle nonequilibrium and beta particle contribution, for intravascular treatment

planning applications. They deduced = (1.108 ± 0.002) cGy h–1 U–1. Taylor and Rogers[139]

(Appendix A.1.1) obtained = (1.109 ± 0.002) cGy h–1 U–1. Granero et al.[138] studied again this source because Nucletron reported some minor changes that are within the manufacturing tolerances: the source core diameter has been reduced to 0.60 mm, the length has been reduced to 3.5 mm, and 0.4 mm of the cable attached to the source capsule has been replaced with stainless steel. Encapsulation thicknesses and the materials and composition by weight remain unchanged. Granero et al., have used three different MC codes: MCNP5, Penelope2008, and GEANT4 (version 9.3). They have reproduced the calculation as in Daskalov et al. (including the same geometry) using the three codes. Comparisons of the Daskalov et al. results with their results indicate that the TG-43 dosimetry parameters agree within k = 1 statistical uncertainties (<0.2%). Therefore, they concluded that any statistically significant dosimetric differences between the mHDR-v2 before and after the changes reported by the manufacturer can be attributed to source design differences and are not due to choice of MC code and related differences in radiological physics modeling. They repeated the MC simulations introducing the changes in the

source geometry and adhered to the HEBD prerequisites. Moreover, they have considered – contribution to the dose distribution and the lake of electronic equilibrium was taken into account.

They have calculated dose to water using cells 0.01 cm in thickness for r 1 cm from the source, and

factors of five and ten thicker for 1 cm < r 3 cm and 3 cm < r 20 cm, respectively. Angular

54 HEBD report

sampling was taken every 2°. Energy cutoff for both electrons and photons was taken as 10 keV. The source was located at the geometric center of a spherical liquid water phantom with 40 cm in radius

to estimate dose to water and simulate unbounded phantom conditions for r 20 cm. Air-kerma

strength was simulated in vacuo. Upon averaging results from the three MC codes, = (1.1121 ±

0.0008) cGy h–1 U–1 was obtained. This value is comparable with the results of Daskalov et al.,

Papagiannis et al., Wang and Li, and Taylor and Rogers for this source. For r 0.25 cm, gL(r) was obtained using kerma estimation, while absorbed dose due to photons and source electrons was used for smaller distances. The gL(r) they obtained agree well (typically < 0.2% differences) with Taylor

and Rogers data for r 0.25 cm as well as with their own study of the unmodified mHDR-v2 source.

F(r, ) is provided with high resolution for radial distances r < 0.4 cm in 2° increments. In general,

F(r, ) agreement with published data on the unchanged mHDR-v2 source is within a few percent except for r < 0.25 cm, where electron dose contributions and the lack of electronic equilibrium become significant. Consensus Data

The MC studies[27,90,93,138,139,169] derived very close values of and their average value was

taken as the consensus value: CON = (1.109±0.012) cGy h–1 U–1 (Table IV). The radial dose function

and anisotropy function from Granero et al.[138] were selected as CONgL(r) (Table V) and CONF(r, ) (Table VIII and Table VIII (cont.)) because they provide data at short distances from the source capsule. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table IX).


Table VIII. F(r, ) for the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

0 0.951 0.951 0.934 0.917 0.874 0.831 0.787 0.744 0.714 0.692

2 0.947 0.947 0.930 0.914 0.871 0.829 0.786 0.744 0.714 0.693

4 0.944 0.944 0.927 0.910 0.869 0.827 0.785 0.744 0.714 0.694

6 1.059 1.059 1.033 1.008 0.944 0.881 0.817 0.754 0.721 0.707

8 0.999 0.999 0.980 0.961 0.914 0.866 0.819 0.772 0.744 0.730

10 1.007 1.007 0.989 0.971 0.927 0.882 0.837 0.793 0.766 0.755

12 1.007 1.007 0.991 0.975 0.936 0.897 0.858 0.819 0.791 0.780

14 1.158 1.158 1.129 1.100 1.027 0.954 0.881 0.830 0.811 0.804

16 1.269 1.269 1.230 1.192 1.094 0.997 0.900 0.851 0.832 0.825

18 1.378 1.378 1.330 1.281 1.159 1.037 0.915 0.867 0.850 0.844

20 1.784 1.784 1.678 1.572 1.306 1.041 0.933 0.885 0.868 0.861

22 1.784 1.784 1.679 1.575 1.313 1.050 0.942 0.893 0.881 0.875

26 1.704 1.704 1.610 1.516 1.281 1.046 0.953 0.920 0.906 0.900

30 1.089 1.089 1.119 1.149 1.225 1.049 0.961 0.932 0.923 0.919

32 1.157 1.157 1.167 1.178 1.203 1.039 0.966 0.939 0.931 0.927

36 1.181 1.181 1.176 1.170 1.156 1.023 0.971 0.949 0.944 0.941

40 0.954 0.954 1.053 1.152 1.109 1.016 0.974 0.961 0.955 0.953

50 1.037 1.037 1.071 1.104 1.047 0.999 0.981 0.976 0.974 0.973

60 1.008 1.008 1.041 1.062 1.013 0.998 0.993 0.987 0.986 0.985

70 1.078 1.078 1.023 1.026 1.001 0.997 0.996 0.995 0.994 0.994

80 1.020 1.020 1.005 1.007 1.000 1.002 1.003 0.998 0.998 0.998

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 1.012 1.012 1.002 1.008 0.996 0.995 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

110 1.069 1.069 1.029 1.025 1.006 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.994 0.994

120 1.004 1.004 1.049 1.060 1.020 0.999 0.992 0.988 0.986 0.986

130 1.056 1.056 1.080 1.105 1.047 1.003 0.985 0.976 0.975 0.974

132 1.043 1.043 1.077 1.111 1.058 1.002 0.982 0.974 0.972 0.970

134 1.021 1.021 1.078 1.135 1.068 1.007 0.982 0.971 0.968 0.967

136 1.011 1.011 1.075 1.138 1.076 1.014 0.979 0.967 0.964 0.963

138 1.080 1.080 1.113 1.146 1.098 1.016 0.977 0.963 0.961 0.958

140 0.983 0.983 1.068 1.153 1.113 1.020 0.982 0.961 0.956 0.954

144 1.184 1.184 1.176 1.169 1.151 1.033 0.978 0.951 0.945 0.942

148 1.140 1.140 1.155 1.169 1.204 1.031 0.976 0.942 0.932 0.928

150 1.099 1.099 1.128 1.158 1.232 1.052 0.967 0.930 0.923 0.920

154 1.631 1.631 1.554 1.477 1.285 1.093 0.959 0.914 0.904 0.899

158 1.725 1.725 1.636 1.547 1.324 1.101 0.947 0.896 0.879 0.873

160 1.741 1.741 1.649 1.558 1.329 1.099 0.937 0.880 0.863 0.858

162 1.515 1.515 1.452 1.389 1.230 1.072 0.914 0.862 0.846 0.840

164 1.382 1.382 1.331 1.280 1.153 1.025 0.898 0.843 0.826 0.820

166 1.961 1.961 1.845 1.729 1.439 1.150 0.860 0.819 0.804 0.797

168 1.036 1.036 1.016 0.996 0.946 0.895 0.845 0.794 0.779 0.770

170 0.894 0.894 0.884 0.874 0.850 0.825 0.801 0.776 0.752 0.741

172 0.880 0.880 0.870 0.860 0.835 0.810 0.786 0.761 0.736 0.711

174 0.626 0.626 0.627 0.627 0.628 0.629 0.630 0.631 0.632 0.633

176 0.575 0.575 0.575 0.576 0.577 0.579 0.580 0.582 0.583 0.585

178 0.536 0.536 0.537 0.537 0.539 0.540 0.542 0.543 0.545 0.546

180 0.497 0.497 0.498 0.499 0.500 0.502 0.503 0.504 0.506 0.507

56 HEBD report

Table VIII (cont). F(r, ) for the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 8 10

0 0.619 0.610 0.614 0.625 0.650 0.689 0.711 0.733 0.768 0.798

2 0.639 0.634 0.640 0.651 0.675 0.704 0.725 0.744 0.775 0.801

4 0.659 0.658 0.667 0.677 0.699 0.720 0.738 0.755 0.782 0.804

6 0.684 0.685 0.693 0.703 0.722 0.741 0.757 0.772 0.796 0.816

8 0.710 0.712 0.719 0.729 0.746 0.763 0.777 0.790 0.812 0.830

10 0.739 0.739 0.746 0.754 0.770 0.785 0.797 0.809 0.829 0.844

12 0.765 0.766 0.772 0.779 0.792 0.805 0.816 0.826 0.844 0.857

14 0.790 0.790 0.795 0.801 0.813 0.825 0.835 0.844 0.859 0.871

16 0.812 0.812 0.816 0.822 0.832 0.842 0.850 0.858 0.871 0.881

18 0.831 0.832 0.835 0.840 0.849 0.857 0.865 0.871 0.882 0.892

20 0.849 0.849 0.852 0.856 0.864 0.871 0.878 0.883 0.893 0.901

22 0.864 0.864 0.867 0.871 0.877 0.884 0.890 0.894 0.903 0.910

26 0.891 0.890 0.892 0.895 0.900 0.905 0.909 0.913 0.920 0.925

30 0.911 0.911 0.913 0.915 0.919 0.922 0.926 0.929 0.934 0.938

32 0.921 0.920 0.921 0.923 0.927 0.930 0.933 0.935 0.940 0.944

36 0.935 0.935 0.936 0.937 0.940 0.943 0.945 0.947 0.950 0.953

40 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.950 0.952 0.954 0.956 0.958 0.960 0.962

50 0.971 0.970 0.971 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.977 0.978

60 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.988 0.989

70 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995

80 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

110 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995

120 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.988 0.989

130 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.975 0.975 0.977 0.978

132 0.967 0.967 0.968 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.972 0.972 0.974 0.975

134 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.964 0.965 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.972

136 0.959 0.958 0.959 0.960 0.961 0.962 0.964 0.965 0.967 0.968

138 0.954 0.953 0.954 0.955 0.956 0.958 0.960 0.961 0.963 0.965

140 0.948 0.947 0.948 0.949 0.951 0.953 0.955 0.957 0.959 0.961

144 0.936 0.935 0.936 0.937 0.940 0.942 0.944 0.946 0.949 0.952

148 0.919 0.919 0.920 0.922 0.925 0.929 0.931 0.934 0.938 0.942

150 0.911 0.910 0.912 0.913 0.917 0.921 0.924 0.927 0.932 0.936

154 0.889 0.888 0.890 0.893 0.898 0.903 0.907 0.911 0.918 0.923

158 0.861 0.861 0.864 0.867 0.873 0.880 0.886 0.891 0.900 0.907

160 0.845 0.845 0.848 0.852 0.860 0.867 0.874 0.879 0.890 0.898

162 0.827 0.826 0.830 0.835 0.844 0.852 0.860 0.867 0.878 0.887

164 0.806 0.805 0.810 0.815 0.825 0.835 0.844 0.852 0.866 0.876

166 0.781 0.781 0.786 0.792 0.804 0.816 0.826 0.835 0.851 0.863

168 0.753 0.754 0.760 0.767 0.782 0.794 0.806 0.816 0.835 0.849

170 0.721 0.722 0.729 0.737 0.754 0.769 0.783 0.796 0.817 0.834

172 0.686 0.686 0.695 0.705 0.725 0.742 0.758 0.772 0.796 0.815

174 0.641 0.646 0.656 0.669 0.692 0.711 0.730 0.747 0.774 0.797

176 0.595 0.602 0.616 0.630 0.658 0.678 0.699 0.718 0.749 0.773

178 0.556 0.563 0.578 0.595 0.625 0.638 0.660 0.682 0.717 0.746

180 0.518 0.525 0.540 0.559 0.591 0.598 0.621 0.646 0.685 0.718


Table IX. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Nucletron mHDR-v2 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01690 0.01709 0.01724 0.01749 0.01772 0.01800 0.01797 0.01713 0.01564 0.01385 0.01209 0.01044

6 0.0227 0.0231 0.0235 0.0239 0.0243 0.0246 0.0244 0.0226 0.01996 0.01719 0.01455 0.01226

5 0.0320 0.0328 0.0337 0.0345 0.0351 0.0353 0.0345 0.0306 0.0259 0.0213 0.01750 0.01432

4 0.0487 0.0505 0.0524 0.0540 0.0549 0.0542 0.0513 0.0426 0.0338 0.0265 0.0208 0.01656

3 0.0819 0.0886 0.0936 0.0965 0.0967 0.0910 0.0813 0.0604 0.0440 0.0324 0.0244 0.01875

2 0.1776 0.2006 0.214 0.214 0.204 0.1704 0.1360 0.0853 0.0557 0.0384 0.0277 0.0207

1.5 0.311 0.364 0.382 0.362 0.324 0.241 0.176 0.0993 0.0614 0.0410 0.0290 0.0215

1 0.707 0.859 0.818 0.682 0.542 0.340 0.223 0.1124 0.0662 0.0431 0.0301 0.0220

0.5 3.45 3.47 2.19 1.354 0.885 0.446 0.264 0.1219 0.0694 0.0445 0.0308 0.0224

0 6.80×108 15.5 4.29 1.953 1.109 0.497 0.281 0.1254 0.0705 0.0449 0.0310 0.0225

–0.5 2.62 3.47 2.20 1.355 0.885 0.447 0.264 0.1219 0.0694 0.0445 0.0308 0.0224

–1 0.608 0.849 0.816 0.681 0.543 0.340 0.223 0.1124 0.0662 0.0431 0.0301 0.0220

–1.5 0.274 0.355 0.380 0.361 0.323 0.242 0.1764 0.0993 0.0614 0.0410 0.0290 0.0215

–2 0.1587 0.1927 0.212 0.213 0.203 0.1703 0.1361 0.0853 0.0558 0.0384 0.0277 0.0207

–3 0.0745 0.0840 0.0915 0.0955 0.0962 0.0907 0.0812 0.0605 0.0440 0.0324 0.0244 0.01875

–4 0.0422 0.0472 0.0507 0.0531 0.0543 0.0540 0.0512 0.0426 0.0338 0.0265 0.0208 0.01656

–5 0.0279 0.0304 0.0324 0.0337 0.0346 0.0351 0.0343 0.0306 0.0259 0.0213 0.01750 0.01432

–6 0.0200 0.0213 0.0225 0.0233 0.0238 0.0244 0.0242 0.0225 0.01994 0.01717 0.01455 0.01226

–7 0.01500 0.01576 0.01647 0.01697 0.01735 0.01780 0.01786 0.01708 0.01561 0.01384 0.01207 0.01044

A.1.3. VS2000 (Varian Medical Systems) Source Description

The VS2000 is an HDR 192Ir source model brought to the market in the year 2000 by Varian Medical Systems (Palo Alto, CA) designed to be used in their remote afterloading system. The active core length (5.0 mm), in comparison to their previous VariSource source (10.0 mm), was reduced in length to provide better flexibility for clinical cases. The source design and encapsulation details remained similar. A schematic diagram is provided in Figure 4. The active source consists of two, 0.34 mm diameter, 2.5 mm long cylinders with semispherical ends. The radioactive material, pure iridium metal (22.42 g/cm³), is uniformly distributed in these two pellets. The source is encapsulated at the end of a 0.59 mm outer diameter nitinol cable consisting of two parts: one flexible part close to the source and a stiffer one in the proximal part of the cable. The composition is 44.4% Ti and 55.6% Ni by weight (density 6.5 g/cm³). The encapsulation extends 1 mm beyond the distal end of the active core and can be approximated by a 0.59 mm diameter, 0.705 mm long cylinder with a hemispherical end of 0.295 mm radius.

58 HEBD report

Figure 4. Material and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems VS2000 source.[170]

Publications

The VS2000 model has been evaluated by Angelopoulos et al.[170] using a custom yet well-benchmarked MC simulation code (Karaiskos et al.[49] in Appendix A.1.1). The MC code used the detailed active core, encapsulation geometry and materials of the source design. Water-kerma approximation was utilized and results were presented for points at transverse distances greater than 1 mm from the source.192Ir source photon spectrum from Glasgow and Dillman[162] was considered. The source was centrally positioned in a 30 cm diameter spherical water phantom. The phantom sphere was divided into discrete concentric spherical shells of 0.1 cm thickness up to 15 cm, each

split into angular intervals of 1° with respect only to . Air-kerma strength was derived using both simulation in free space and dry air. The data from Angelopoulos et al.[170] were cross-checked by the same authors against other sources such as the VariSource and the microSelectron and to a point

source to validate their findings. Percentage differences between the values of these three sources

follow the percentage differences detected between their geometry functions, GL(r = 1 cm, /2),

where is defined. When compared to the point source and using the same phantom dimensions, gL(r) was not significantly affected by the source and the encapsulation geometry (3% at distance

close to the source 2 mm and less than 1% for all other radial distances). They reported = (1.101

± 0.006) cGy h–1 U–1. Observe that in this paper polar angle is defined as 180° – (Fig. 1).

Taylor and Rogers[139] (see Appendix A.1.1) obtained = (1.099 ± 0.002) cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

The average value of the MC studies[139] was taken as the consensus value: CON = (1.100 ±

0.006) cGy h–1 U–1 (Table IV). The radial dose function and anisotropy function from Taylor and

Rogers were selected as CONgL(r) (Table V) and CONF(r, ) (Table X) because these were obtained in an unbounded phantom, although both studies provided close results for the anisotropy function. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XI).


Table X. F(r, ) for the Varian Medical Systems VS2000 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

0 0.598 0.598 0.573 0.524 0.536 0.568 0.599 0.627 0.688 0.734

1 0.508 0.508 0.514 0.527 0.551 0.580 0.612 0.638 0.698 0.743

2 0.526 0.526 0.533 0.546 0.573 0.606 0.635 0.661 0.715 0.757

3 0.556 0.556 0.563 0.576 0.601 0.631 0.658 0.684 0.733 0.771

5 0.626 0.626 0.631 0.642 0.663 0.690 0.712 0.732 0.772 0.804

7 0.691 0.691 0.695 0.703 0.718 0.739 0.756 0.771 0.804 0.829

10 0.770 0.770 0.772 0.775 0.781 0.797 0.811 0.821 0.844 0.864

12 0.801 0.801 0.803 0.806 0.812 0.825 0.835 0.843 0.863 0.878

15 0.842 0.842 0.843 0.845 0.848 0.858 0.865 0.871 0.886 0.898

20 0.889 0.889 0.889 0.890 0.892 0.898 0.902 0.904 0.915 0.924

25 0.929 0.929 0.926 0.920 0.918 0.922 0.925 0.926 0.934 0.938

30 0.945 0.945 0.943 0.940 0.938 0.942 0.944 0.946 0.949 0.953

35 0.959 0.959 0.958 0.957 0.952 0.955 0.956 0.959 0.961 0.965

40 0.969 0.969 0.968 0.966 0.963 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.971

45 0.976 0.976 0.975 0.974 0.973 0.975 0.975 0.976 0.977 0.978

50 0.993 0.993 0.983 0.982 0.979 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.983 0.984

55 0.996 0.996 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986

60 0.997 0.997 0.991 0.991 0.988 0.992 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.991

65 0.997 0.997 0.994 0.997 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.995

70 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.996

75 0.998 0.998 0.998 1.000 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.999

80 0.999 0.999 0.998 1.002 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.999 0.998

85 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.001 0.998 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

95 0.999 0.999 1.001 1.000 0.998 0.999 0.998 1.000 0.999 0.999

100 0.999 0.999 0.998 1.005 0.997 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.999 1.000

105 0.999 0.999 0.998 1.000 0.997 1.000 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.997

110 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.999 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.997 0.997

115 0.998 0.998 0.994 0.995 0.992 0.994 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.993

120 0.997 0.997 0.991 0.996 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.993

125 0.995 0.995 0.987 0.988 0.984 0.987 0.985 0.985 0.984 0.988

130 0.993 0.993 0.981 0.979 0.978 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.981 0.983

135 0.976 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.975 0.976 0.977

140 0.971 0.971 0.969 0.967 0.964 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.971

145 0.960 0.960 0.958 0.955 0.953 0.956 0.958 0.958 0.961 0.963

150 0.947 0.947 0.945 0.941 0.940 0.944 0.944 0.945 0.951 0.954

155 0.931 0.931 0.927 0.918 0.919 0.923 0.927 0.931 0.935 0.942

160 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.891 0.896 0.899 0.904 0.914 0.921

165 0.845 0.845 0.845 0.846 0.848 0.858 0.865 0.872 0.886 0.899

168 0.799 0.799 0.801 0.804 0.812 0.825 0.834 0.845 0.863 0.878

170 0.755 0.755 0.758 0.765 0.779 0.794 0.806 0.820 0.843 0.861

173 0.676 0.676 0.681 0.691 0.712 0.732 0.750 0.767 0.799 0.826

175 0.608 0.608 0.613 0.625 0.648 0.671 0.695 0.717 0.760 0.793

177 0.511 0.511 0.518 0.533 0.561 0.590 0.619 0.648 0.704 0.749

178 0.514 0.514 0.519 0.529 0.550 0.570 0.591 0.611 0.662 0.714

179 0.402 0.402 0.409 0.422 0.449 0.475 0.501 0.528 0.594 0.660

180 0.291 0.291 0.299 0.315 0.348 0.380 0.412 0.444 0.525 0.606

60 HEBD report

Table XI. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Varian Medical Systems VS2000 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01537 0.01603 0.01688 0.01762 0.01815 0.01871 0.01867 0.01772 0.01610 0.01422 0.01235 0.01066

6 0.0204 0.0216 0.0231 0.0243 0.0251 0.0256 0.0253 0.0233 0.0205 0.01757 0.01485 0.01249

5 0.0285 0.0309 0.0336 0.0354 0.0365 0.0368 0.0357 0.0315 0.0265 0.0218 0.01781 0.01453

4 0.0428 0.0479 0.0533 0.0564 0.0574 0.0565 0.0530 0.0437 0.0345 0.0269 0.0211 0.01679

3 0.0722 0.0863 0.0973 0.1014 0.1013 0.0943 0.0835 0.0616 0.0446 0.0328 0.0247 0.01899

2 0.1543 0.204 0.226 0.225 0.212 0.1749 0.1388 0.0864 0.0564 0.0388 0.0279 0.0209

1.5 0.273 0.384 0.405 0.378 0.334 0.247 0.1790 0.1003 0.0620 0.0414 0.0293 0.0217

1 0.627 0.930 0.864 0.705 0.555 0.344 0.225 0.1131 0.0667 0.0435 0.0303 0.0222

0.5 3.42 3.87 2.27 1.370 0.891 0.448 0.265 0.1224 0.0698 0.0449 0.0310 0.0226

0 2.38×108 13.98 4.15 1.924 1.100 0.497 0.282 0.1260 0.0710 0.0453 0.0313 0.0227

–0.5 1.79 3.87 2.27 1.373 0.891 0.448 0.265 0.1225 0.0698 0.0448 0.0310 0.0226

–1 0.378 0.930 0.863 0.705 0.556 0.344 0.225 0.1131 0.0667 0.0435 0.0303 0.0222

–1.5 0.171 0.381 0.405 0.378 0.334 0.247 0.1788 0.1003 0.0619 0.0414 0.0293 0.0216

–2 0.1001 0.203 0.226 0.225 0.212 0.1750 0.1388 0.0863 0.0564 0.0388 0.0279 0.0209

–3 0.0483 0.0836 0.0968 0.1013 0.1011 0.0944 0.0837 0.0617 0.0446 0.0328 0.0247 0.01898

–4 0.0294 0.0455 0.0529 0.0562 0.0574 0.0564 0.0531 0.0437 0.0344 0.0268 0.0211 0.01680

–5 0.0202 0.0292 0.0331 0.0353 0.0366 0.0368 0.0357 0.0315 0.0265 0.0217 0.01777 0.01453

–6 0.01493 0.0202 0.0226 0.0241 0.0250 0.0256 0.0253 0.0233 0.0205 0.01757 0.01484 0.01247

–7 0.01158 0.01487 0.01642 0.01743 0.01807 0.01871 0.01868 0.01772 0.01612 0.01421 0.01234 0.01064

A.1.4. Buchler (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

This source is the HDR 192Ir source from Amersham (Product code ICCB2113, Source G0814, described in the Technical Information and Operation Instructions of the Unit). The 192Ir Buchler HDR

source consists of a cylindrical active iridium core ( = 22.42 g/cm3) of 1 mm diameter and 1.3 mm length (Figure 5). The active iridium is assumed to be uniformly distributed in this core, which is encapsulated in a stainless steel wire (No 1.4541) of 1.6 mm outer diameter and 1.2 mm inner diameter. The upper rounded end of the source is a stainless steel hemisphere of radius 0.8 mm. Publications

This source has been studied by Ballester et al.[64] using the GEANT3 code.[171] Photon interactions simulated in this code include photoelectric effect (followed by characteristics x-rays), Compton scattering, pair production, and Rayleigh scattering. They used the spectrum from Shirley.[172] The cutoff energy for photons was taken as 10 keV. The electron transport was done in order to account for the small differences between kerma and absorbed dose at positions close to the


Figure 5. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG HDR 192Ir Buchler model G0814 source.[64]

source due to the lack of charged-particle equilibrium near the source (r < 1 cm). A cutoff energy of 10 keV was taken for electrons. A cylinder of water of 80 cm height and 40 cm in radius was assumed with the source in its center. Ballester et al. [private communication] have reported a misprint in ref. [64] where the phantom dimensions given (40 cm height and 40 cm diameter) are incorrect. The extension of the proximal end of the wire was modeled as 6 cm long with effective

density of = 5.6 g/cm3 in both cases. The dose analog estimator was used to calculate absorbed dose.

The dose was calculated up to 20 cm away from the source in 0.5 mm steps and for angles from 0° to

180° in 1° steps. Next, the dose was stored in Cartesian coordinates as a 400 800 matrix from y = 0

to y = 20 cm and from z = –20 cm to z = +20 cm, and in polar coordinates as a 400 180 matrix from

r = 0 to r = 20 cm and from = 0° to = 180°. The standard deviation (k = 1) of the absorbed dose in cells at distances less than 5 cm from the origin ranged from 0.1% to 1.5%, increasing to 5% at 20

cm. To evaluate SK, the source was positioned in a (6 6 6) m3 dry air cube and cells to score air kerma were defined for transverse axis distances ranging from 5 cm to 150 cm. The air kerma has been

scored at distances from the source large enough to treat the source as a mathematical point. y = z

=1 cm cell sizes were taken. The active length L = 0.15 cm was used to calculate gL(r) and F(r, ) from

0.2 cm up to 20 cm. They reported a = (1.115 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1. Taylor and Rogers[139] (Appendix A.1.1) studied this source with the same geometry and source

cable as in Ballester et al., obtaining = (1.119 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

The average of the two published values was used for CON = (1.117 ± 0.004) cGy h–1 U–1 and is recommended (Table IV). For CONgL(r), data from Ballester et al.[64] reproduced in Table V are recommended, because electron transport was included and Taylors and Rogers data present a step at

62 HEBD report r = 1 cm. For CONF(r, ), data from Ballester et al.[64] reproduced in Table XII are recommended, because of the step at 1 cm in Taylor and Rogers data and the dose was reported close to the source by Ballester et al. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XIII).

Table XII. F(r, ) for the Buchler model G0814 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 10

0 0.864 0.864 0.873 0.882 0.881 0.880 0.884 0.887 0.891 0.893 0.896 0.915 0.920 0.940

1 0.863 0.863 0.871 0.879 0.878 0.878 0.881 0.885 0.889 0.892 0.895 0.915 0.920 0.938

2 0.871 0.871 0.878 0.885 0.884 0.883 0.885 0.888 0.891 0.894 0.897 0.916 0.922 0.937

3 0.873 0.873 0.880 0.887 0.886 0.885 0.888 0.890 0.893 0.897 0.901 0.918 0.925 0.937

4 0.876 0.876 0.882 0.888 0.888 0.887 0.889 0.892 0.895 0.899 0.903 0.920 0.927 0.937

5 0.876 0.876 0.882 0.888 0.889 0.889 0.891 0.894 0.897 0.902 0.906 0.921 0.927 0.935

6 0.877 0.877 0.883 0.889 0.890 0.890 0.893 0.895 0.898 0.904 0.909 0.923 0.929 0.935

7 0.878 0.878 0.884 0.890 0.891 0.891 0.893 0.895 0.899 0.905 0.910 0.924 0.930 0.935

8 0.880 0.880 0.886 0.892 0.894 0.893 0.896 0.898 0.901 0.908 0.912 0.925 0.931 0.935

9 0.882 0.882 0.888 0.894 0.896 0.897 0.899 0.901 0.905 0.911 0.916 0.927 0.932 0.935

10 0.883 0.883 0.889 0.895 0.898 0.899 0.902 0.904 0.907 0.914 0.918 0.928 0.933 0.935

15 0.896 0.896 0.901 0.906 0.909 0.910 0.912 0.913 0.916 0.923 0.927 0.936 0.940 0.940

20 0.905 0.905 0.911 0.917 0.919 0.921 0.923 0.924 0.927 0.933 0.937 0.945 0.948 0.948

30 0.910 0.910 0.934 0.940 0.942 0.942 0.944 0.946 0.947 0.951 0.954 0.959 0.962 0.964

40 0.939 0.939 0.955 0.962 0.964 0.963 0.964 0.967 0.967 0.968 0.970 0.973 0.975 0.977

50 0.964 0.964 0.977 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.983 0.982 0.982 0.983 0.986 0.987 0.987

60 0.976 0.976 0.991 0.993 0.994 0.995 0.992 0.995 0.993 0.992 0.993 0.996 0.995 0.993

70 0.989 0.989 0.997 1.000 1.001 1.001 0.998 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.998 0.997

80 0.997 0.997 0.997 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.000 0.999

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.998 0.998 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000

110 0.980 0.980 0.996 1.000 1.001 1.002 0.999 1.002 0.999 0.998 0.998 1.000 0.998 0.998

120 0.980 0.980 0.989 0.993 0.995 0.995 0.993 0.996 0.994 0.993 0.993 0.996 0.994 0.991

130 0.957 0.957 0.978 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.982 0.984 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.987 0.987 0.982

140 0.950 0.950 0.957 0.964 0.964 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.970 0.971 0.971 0.970

150 0.921 0.921 0.928 0.935 0.937 0.940 0.939 0.939 0.942 0.944 0.947 0.948 0.950 0.954

160 0.867 0.867 0.880 0.893 0.893 0.894 0.894 0.896 0.897 0.901 0.907 0.919 0.922 0.929

165 0.854 0.854 0.855 0.856 0.855 0.858 0.861 0.865 0.865 0.870 0.878 0.895 0.903 0.908

170 0.803 0.803 0.807 0.811 0.815 0.820 0.823 0.824 0.825 0.827 0.838 0.859 0.875 0.878

171 0.796 0.796 0.799 0.802 0.805 0.808 0.812 0.813 0.815 0.818 0.830 0.851 0.868 0.869

172 0.785 0.785 0.786 0.787 0.788 0.789 0.796 0.799 0.804 0.806 0.820 0.839 0.857 0.860

173 0.750 0.750 0.755 0.760 0.765 0.770 0.775 0.783 0.790 0.791 0.805 0.825 0.845 0.849

174 0.692 0.692 0.703 0.715 0.726 0.737 0.751 0.758 0.766 0.775 0.791 0.810 0.831 0.837


Table XII (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 10

175 0.696 0.696 0.701 0.705 0.710 0.715 0.721 0.727 0.738 0.754 0.773 0.792 0.814 0.824

176 0.642 0.642 0.648 0.655 0.661 0.667 0.675 0.683 0.698 0.729 0.750 0.767 0.791 0.806

177 0.509 0.509 0.520 0.532 0.543 0.554 0.568 0.582 0.610 0.666 0.696 0.732 0.763 0.784

178 0.466 0.466 0.472 0.479 0.485 0.492 0.500 0.509 0.525 0.558 0.591 0.659 0.720 0.750

179 0.414 0.414 0.419 0.424 0.429 0.434 0.440 0.446 0.458 0.483 0.507 0.556 0.605 0.655

180 0.272 0.272 0.279 0.286 0.293 0.300 0.308 0.317 0.334 0.369 0.403 0.472 0.541 0.610

Table XIII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Buchler model G0814 source.

Values inside the source are in italics. y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.0206 0.0206 0.0206 0.0205 0.0204 0.0200 0.01944 0.01791 0.01606 0.01410 0.01225 0.01056

6 0.0283 0.0283 0.0283 0.0281 0.0279 0.0271 0.0261 0.0234 0.0204 0.01739 0.01469 0.01237

5 0.0406 0.0407 0.0406 0.0403 0.0399 0.0384 0.0364 0.0315 0.0262 0.0215 0.01762 0.01440

4 0.0631 0.0633 0.0631 0.0625 0.0613 0.0579 0.0534 0.0433 0.0341 0.0267 0.0209 0.01661

3 0.1119 0.1122 0.1113 0.1087 0.1050 0.0948 0.0832 0.0611 0.0443 0.0326 0.0244 0.01877

2 0.250 0.249 0.242 0.229 0.212 0.1732 0.1373 0.0858 0.0559 0.0385 0.0277 0.0207

1.5 0.443 0.439 0.414 0.375 0.330 0.243 0.1774 0.0997 0.0616 0.0411 0.0291 0.0214

1 0.989 0.960 0.840 0.688 0.547 0.342 0.224 0.1127 0.0663 0.0431 0.0301 0.0220

0.5 4.00 3.37 2.18 1.362 0.892 0.449 0.264 0.1221 0.0694 0.0444 0.0307 0.0223

0 1.37×109 17.83 4.46 1.982 1.117 0.498 0.281 0.1253 0.0704 0.0448 0.0309 0.0224

–0.5 1.287 3.32 2.18 1.364 0.892 0.449 0.264 0.1220 0.0694 0.0444 0.0307 0.0223

–1 0.336 0.899 0.830 0.687 0.547 0.342 0.224 0.1126 0.0662 0.0431 0.0301 0.0220

–1.5 0.1582 0.398 0.399 0.370 0.329 0.244 0.1776 0.0997 0.0615 0.0411 0.0290 0.0214

–2 0.0939 0.219 0.227 0.222 0.209 0.1729 0.1374 0.0858 0.0559 0.0385 0.0277 0.0207

–3 0.0462 0.0931 0.1003 0.1017 0.1007 0.0933 0.0828 0.0611 0.0443 0.0326 0.0244 0.01876

–4 0.0284 0.0510 0.0560 0.0574 0.0577 0.0561 0.0525 0.0432 0.0341 0.0267 0.0209 0.01659

–5 0.01962 0.0314 0.0353 0.0366 0.0370 0.0369 0.0355 0.0311 0.0261 0.0215 0.01762 0.01438

–6 0.01459 0.0212 0.0241 0.0252 0.0257 0.0258 0.0253 0.0230 0.0202 0.01732 0.01465 0.01233

–7 0.01137 0.01552 0.01744 0.01824 0.01868 0.01888 0.01869 0.01751 0.01585 0.01399 0.01218 0.01050

A.1.5. GammaMed HDR 12i (Varian Medical Systems) Source Description

The model GammaMed HDR 12i source consists of an iridium core of 3.5 mm in length and 0.7 mm in diameter, encapsulated in a stainless steel wire as shown in Figure 6, which is nearly identical to the mHDR-v1 source. The distance from the physical tip of the source to the distal face of the active source core is 0.86 mm.

64 HEBD report

Figure 6. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed HDR 12i source.[65]

Publications

Ballester et al.[65] published the absolute dose distributions in water as 2D Cartesian look-up tables for the source using the GEANT3 MC code.[171] The methodology is the same described in Appendix A.1.4 for the Buchler source from the same group. Ballester et al. [private communication] have reported a misprint in ref. [65] where the phantom dimensions given (40 cm height and 40 cm diameter) are incorrect. They also used this absolute dose distribution data to derive TG-43

parameters for this source. They derived, using L = 3.5 mm, = (1.118 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1.

A second study was done by Taylor and Rogers[139] that obtained = (1.117 ± 0.003)

cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

The gL(r) data from both studies are in good agreement, but the Taylor and Rogers results

present a step at 1 cm. F(r, ) data from both studies are indistinguishable. An averaged CON = (1.118

± 0.004) cGy h–1 U–1 is taken as the consensus value (Table IV). Due to the gL(r) data step at 1 cm in the Taylor and Rogers data and taking into account the electron transport inclusion and angular

mesh, datasets from Ballester et al.[65] have been taken as CONgL(r) and CONF(r, ) (Table V and Table XIV). Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XV).


Table XIV. F(r, ) for the GammaMed HDR 12i source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10

0 0.676 0.676 0.665 0.654 0.639 0.633 0.639 0.635 0.646 0.637 0.647 0.644 0.676 0.677 0.712 0.711 0.754 0.785

1 0.665 0.665 0.655 0.646 0.635 0.631 0.638 0.635 0.646 0.640 0.650 0.648 0.677 0.677 0.706 0.707 0.747 0.779

2 0.724 0.724 0.694 0.663 0.644 0.640 0.646 0.641 0.652 0.650 0.660 0.661 0.690 0.693 0.719 0.728 0.766 0.790

3 0.742 0.742 0.706 0.669 0.653 0.651 0.656 0.651 0.661 0.661 0.671 0.673 0.700 0.704 0.724 0.734 0.771 0.795

4 0.741 0.741 0.710 0.679 0.664 0.660 0.664 0.659 0.670 0.673 0.682 0.686 0.710 0.715 0.731 0.744 0.778 0.802

5 0.746 0.746 0.718 0.690 0.677 0.672 0.674 0.668 0.678 0.683 0.692 0.699 0.721 0.727 0.742 0.756 0.787 0.807

6 0.769 0.769 0.735 0.700 0.691 0.688 0.688 0.681 0.691 0.696 0.704 0.712 0.731 0.737 0.750 0.765 0.795 0.814

7 0.775 0.775 0.744 0.713 0.701 0.698 0.699 0.694 0.704 0.710 0.717 0.724 0.741 0.749 0.760 0.776 0.803 0.820

8 0.789 0.789 0.755 0.721 0.714 0.713 0.713 0.708 0.717 0.723 0.729 0.738 0.753 0.760 0.770 0.786 0.811 0.826

9 0.796 0.796 0.765 0.734 0.727 0.725 0.725 0.720 0.729 0.734 0.740 0.750 0.763 0.771 0.781 0.796 0.819 0.833

10 0.808 0.808 0.776 0.745 0.739 0.737 0.736 0.733 0.740 0.746 0.751 0.762 0.773 0.781 0.791 0.806 0.826 0.840

15 0.852 0.852 0.829 0.806 0.801 0.797 0.795 0.796 0.800 0.803 0.807 0.815 0.822 0.829 0.839 0.849 0.862 0.871

20 0.974 0.974 0.876 0.855 0.849 0.845 0.843 0.847 0.849 0.848 0.853 0.856 0.862 0.868 0.875 0.881 0.890 0.897

30 0.981 0.981 0.931 0.920 0.917 0.914 0.914 0.911 0.914 0.913 0.915 0.915 0.918 0.920 0.922 0.927 0.931 0.936

40 0.992 0.992 0.965 0.955 0.954 0.952 0.951 0.949 0.950 0.950 0.949 0.950 0.954 0.954 0.955 0.958 0.959 0.962

50 0.995 0.995 0.980 0.974 0.975 0.974 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.972 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.975 0.976 0.977 0.978

60 0.998 0.998 0.990 0.988 0.988 0.987 0.985 0.984 0.988 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.989

70 0.999 0.999 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.994 0.992 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.995 0.995

80 1.002 1.002 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.997 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.998

110 0.998 0.998 0.995 0.994 0.993 0.995 0.993 0.991 0.993 0.993 0.992 0.993 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.994

120 0.997 0.997 0.989 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.985 0.982 0.984 0.984 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.984 0.984 0.986 0.985 0.986

130 0.997 0.997 0.978 0.971 0.971 0.969 0.969 0.967 0.970 0.968 0.967 0.968 0.970 0.968 0.970 0.974 0.972 0.974

140 0.993 0.993 0.960 0.949 0.949 0.947 0.946 0.945 0.947 0.946 0.945 0.947 0.948 0.946 0.949 0.954 0.954 0.956

150 0.978 0.978 0.924 0.912 0.909 0.909 0.906 0.905 0.908 0.909 0.910 0.912 0.913 0.912 0.915 0.921 0.924 0.929

160 0.945 0.945 0.891 0.841 0.838 0.839 0.836 0.837 0.839 0.842 0.845 0.847 0.854 0.855 0.861 0.868 0.876 0.888

165 0.853 0.853 0.817 0.781 0.782 0.783 0.782 0.783 0.786 0.788 0.795 0.798 0.807 0.811 0.821 0.831 0.845 0.859

170 0.828 0.828 0.765 0.702 0.713 0.703 0.707 0.704 0.713 0.715 0.724 0.730 0.740 0.748 0.762 0.779 0.801 0.817

171 0.775 0.775 0.738 0.701 0.689 0.690 0.687 0.684 0.694 0.696 0.705 0.712 0.723 0.731 0.748 0.766 0.790 0.807

172 0.772 0.772 0.724 0.676 0.676 0.678 0.669 0.664 0.674 0.677 0.684 0.691 0.705 0.713 0.732 0.751 0.777 0.795

173 0.657 0.657 0.654 0.651 0.648 0.657 0.627 0.642 0.652 0.655 0.661 0.669 0.685 0.694 0.715 0.734 0.762 0.783

174 0.635 0.635 0.630 0.625 0.620 0.618 0.601 0.620 0.628 0.633 0.636 0.645 0.663 0.673 0.695 0.715 0.745 0.769

175 0.671 0.671 0.647 0.623 0.599 0.575 0.581 0.601 0.600 0.607 0.609 0.618 0.638 0.647 0.672 0.690 0.723 0.752

176 0.616 0.616 0.602 0.588 0.574 0.560 0.544 0.569 0.588 0.556 0.576 0.588 0.610 0.619 0.648 0.665 0.700 0.733

177 0.242 0.242 0.281 0.319 0.358 0.396 0.444 0.492 0.553 0.500 0.527 0.540 0.566 0.577 0.614 0.634 0.671 0.711

178 0.959 0.959 0.900 0.842 0.783 0.725 0.652 0.579 0.506 0.433 0.448 0.479 0.550 0.540 0.583 0.588 0.635 0.682

179 0.495 0.495 0.496 0.496 0.497 0.498 0.499 0.500 0.501 0.502 0.504 0.506 0.508 0.510 0.522 0.572 0.584 0.642

180 0.315 0.315 0.321 0.327 0.333 0.339 0.347 0.355 0.362 0.370 0.385 0.400 0.415 0.430 0.460 0.491 0.551 0.612

66 HEBD report

Table XV. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the GammaMed HDR 12i source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01654 0.01686 0.01712 0.01744 0.01769 0.01797 0.01795 0.01707 0.01563 0.01386 0.01212 0.01048

6 0.0221 0.0227 0.0233 0.0238 0.0242 0.0246 0.0243 0.0225 0.0200 0.01721 0.01458 0.01231

5 0.0322 0.0326 0.0334 0.0343 0.0349 0.0353 0.0344 0.0306 0.0259 0.0214 0.01754 0.01436

4 0.0481 0.0503 0.0525 0.0540 0.0548 0.0542 0.0512 0.0426 0.0339 0.0266 0.0209 0.01660

3 0.0817 0.0877 0.0933 0.0961 0.0964 0.0909 0.0815 0.0607 0.0442 0.0325 0.0244 0.01880

2 0.1822 0.200 0.213 0.214 0.204 0.1712 0.1368 0.0858 0.0560 0.0385 0.0278 0.0207

1.5 0.324 0.361 0.381 0.362 0.325 0.243 0.1778 0.0999 0.0617 0.0412 0.0291 0.0215

1 0.737 0.857 0.819 0.687 0.547 0.343 0.225 0.1131 0.0665 0.0433 0.0302 0.0221

0.5 3.37 3.48 2.21 1.367 0.892 0.450 0.266 0.1226 0.0697 0.0446 0.0309 0.0224

0 3.89×108 15.63 4.32 1.965 1.118 0.502 0.283 0.1262 0.0709 0.0451 0.0311 0.0226

–0.5 1.659 3.45 2.20 1.364 0.892 0.449 0.266 0.1226 0.0696 0.0446 0.0308 0.0224

–1 0.395 0.837 0.813 0.682 0.544 0.342 0.224 0.1129 0.0664 0.0432 0.0301 0.0221

–1.5 0.1811 0.345 0.376 0.359 0.324 0.242 0.1770 0.0997 0.0615 0.0411 0.0291 0.0215

–2 0.1057 0.1852 0.208 0.212 0.202 0.1704 0.1363 0.0856 0.0558 0.0384 0.0277 0.0207

–3 0.0507 0.0770 0.0890 0.0938 0.0951 0.0903 0.0810 0.0603 0.0440 0.0324 0.0244 0.01875

–4 0.0306 0.0426 0.0488 0.0519 0.0534 0.0535 0.0507 0.0424 0.0338 0.0265 0.0208 0.01654

–5 0.0208 0.0275 0.0308 0.0327 0.0338 0.0346 0.0339 0.0304 0.0258 0.0213 0.01746 0.01430

–6 0.01526 0.01881 0.0211 0.0225 0.0234 0.0240 0.0239 0.0223 0.01982 0.01712 0.01450 0.01225

–7 0.01176 0.01383 0.01539 0.01634 0.01695 0.01749 0.01761 0.01685 0.01550 0.01377 0.01205 0.01042

A.1.6. GammaMed HDR Plus (Varian Medical Systems)

Source Description

The model GammaMed HDR Plus source, shown in Figure 7, is almost identical to the HDR model 12i. With an active core of 3.5 mm in length and 0.7 mm in diameter, the physical source is 4.52 mm in length and 0.9 mm in diameter. The distance from the physical tip of the source to the distal face of the active source core is 0.62 mm, which is smaller than the model HDR 12i. Publications

In the same publication with the Model 12i data (Appendix A.1.5), Ballester et al.[65] published the absolute dose distributions in water as 2D Cartesian look-up tables for the Model Plus. They also used this absolute dose distribution data to derive TG-43 parameters for this source. Using L = 3.5

mm, they reported = (1.118 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1.

A second study by Taylor and Rogers[139] (Appendex A.1.1) derived = (1.115 ± 0.003)

cGy h–1 U–1.


Figure 7. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed HDR Plus source.[65]

Consensus Data

Both studies provide similar TG-43 parameters, but the gL(r) data from Taylor and Rogers are

noisy. F(r, ) data from both studies are indistinguishable. Averaged CON = (1.117 ± 0.004)

cGy h–1 U–1 is taken as consensus value (Table IV). Due to the gL(r) data fluctuations in Taylor and

Rogers, the data from Ballester et al., have been taken as CONgL(r) and CONF(r, ) for Table V and Table XVI. In Ballester et al., dose was scored instead kerma giving more accuracy in values close to the source and it presented higher angular resolution close to the source longitudinal axis. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XVII).

Table XVI. F(r, ) for the GammaMed HDR Plus source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10

0 0.695 0.695 0.666 0.636 0.630 0.608 0.615 0.634 0.625 0.629 0.648 0.654 0.660 0.683 0.702 0.716 0.758 0.789

1 0.711 0.711 0.677 0.643 0.632 0.609 0.614 0.632 0.626 0.633 0.656 0.667 0.676 0.698 0.716 0.727 0.762 0.786

2 0.715 0.715 0.684 0.653 0.640 0.620 0.624 0.638 0.634 0.641 0.661 0.671 0.679 0.697 0.717 0.730 0.764 0.794

3 0.708 0.708 0.684 0.660 0.650 0.634 0.637 0.647 0.646 0.653 0.671 0.682 0.691 0.705 0.726 0.739 0.771 0.798

4 0.736 0.736 0.701 0.666 0.654 0.645 0.652 0.662 0.663 0.668 0.680 0.690 0.697 0.711 0.736 0.750 0.779 0.805

5 0.728 0.728 0.706 0.684 0.673 0.664 0.668 0.674 0.676 0.682 0.693 0.704 0.712 0.724 0.748 0.762 0.788 0.811

6 0.722 0.722 0.709 0.696 0.688 0.681 0.683 0.686 0.691 0.697 0.707 0.718 0.725 0.734 0.757 0.770 0.795 0.817

7 0.736 0.736 0.720 0.705 0.697 0.692 0.697 0.700 0.707 0.712 0.719 0.729 0.736 0.745 0.769 0.780 0.802 0.823

8 0.732 0.732 0.726 0.720 0.715 0.712 0.713 0.713 0.719 0.724 0.731 0.743 0.751 0.758 0.779 0.789 0.810 0.830

9 0.744 0.744 0.738 0.733 0.729 0.726 0.728 0.727 0.734 0.738 0.743 0.754 0.762 0.769 0.790 0.799 0.818 0.837

10 0.762 0.762 0.753 0.743 0.738 0.738 0.741 0.740 0.748 0.752 0.755 0.765 0.772 0.778 0.799 0.808 0.826 0.844

68 HEBD report

Table XVI (continued). r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10

15 0.837 0.837 0.820 0.803 0.801 0.802 0.804 0.802 0.809 0.811 0.813 0.821 0.828 0.829 0.844 0.848 0.863 0.873

20 0.962 0.962 0.866 0.855 0.854 0.852 0.853 0.852 0.858 0.858 0.862 0.865 0.870 0.869 0.878 0.880 0.893 0.900

30 0.968 0.968 0.923 0.917 0.916 0.912 0.913 0.912 0.918 0.918 0.918 0.921 0.923 0.923 0.927 0.930 0.933 0.939

40 0.979 0.979 0.956 0.951 0.952 0.948 0.949 0.946 0.950 0.951 0.950 0.953 0.955 0.954 0.958 0.958 0.959 0.963

50 0.987 0.987 0.977 0.973 0.973 0.971 0.972 0.971 0.972 0.973 0.973 0.974 0.975 0.974 0.977 0.976 0.978 0.978

60 0.993 0.993 0.987 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.987 0.985 0.987 0.988 0.989 0.989 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.988 0.988 0.988

70 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.996 0.993 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.996

80 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.999 1.000 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999

110 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.993 0.995 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.994 0.995 0.995

120 0.998 0.998 0.990 0.985 0.984 0.985 0.986 0.984 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.989 0.988 0.987 0.989 0.989

130 0.994 0.994 0.976 0.973 0.971 0.972 0.972 0.970 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.977 0.977 0.979

140 0.991 0.991 0.958 0.950 0.947 0.948 0.947 0.947 0.949 0.950 0.952 0.953 0.954 0.953 0.956 0.958 0.959 0.962

150 0.973 0.973 0.923 0.914 0.914 0.914 0.914 0.912 0.915 0.916 0.917 0.919 0.921 0.920 0.925 0.927 0.931 0.935

160 0.966 0.966 0.873 0.851 0.850 0.847 0.850 0.848 0.853 0.856 0.857 0.863 0.867 0.870 0.876 0.878 0.889 0.895

165 0.828 0.828 0.814 0.801 0.798 0.796 0.798 0.801 0.802 0.806 0.809 0.818 0.822 0.829 0.838 0.843 0.860 0.870

170 0.789 0.789 0.756 0.723 0.720 0.725 0.725 0.729 0.730 0.734 0.743 0.754 0.761 0.771 0.784 0.795 0.819 0.831

171 0.730 0.730 0.715 0.700 0.699 0.706 0.706 0.710 0.712 0.716 0.725 0.735 0.744 0.755 0.768 0.782 0.809 0.822

172 0.722 0.722 0.699 0.676 0.679 0.686 0.686 0.689 0.692 0.696 0.705 0.716 0.725 0.738 0.752 0.768 0.798 0.811

173 0.627 0.627 0.635 0.642 0.649 0.664 0.663 0.666 0.671 0.675 0.684 0.695 0.705 0.719 0.735 0.752 0.785 0.799

174 0.574 0.574 0.596 0.618 0.640 0.643 0.641 0.643 0.650 0.653 0.662 0.672 0.684 0.698 0.715 0.733 0.769 0.784

175 0.627 0.627 0.623 0.619 0.615 0.611 0.615 0.616 0.625 0.627 0.636 0.646 0.659 0.674 0.692 0.713 0.752 0.769

176 0.710 0.710 0.674 0.638 0.602 0.566 0.568 0.585 0.597 0.598 0.608 0.618 0.632 0.645 0.666 0.688 0.731 0.750

177 0.687 0.687 0.658 0.630 0.601 0.572 0.536 0.500 0.565 0.564 0.575 0.584 0.600 0.610 0.634 0.659 0.706 0.729

178 0.450 0.450 0.459 0.467 0.476 0.485 0.496 0.507 0.518 0.529 0.521 0.533 0.553 0.560 0.591 0.620 0.672 0.702

179 0.329 0.329 0.340 0.350 0.361 0.371 0.384 0.397 0.410 0.423 0.449 0.475 0.501 0.527 0.548 0.572 0.621 0.659

180 0.417 0.417 0.421 0.426 0.430 0.434 0.440 0.445 0.451 0.456 0.467 0.478 0.489 0.501 0.523 0.545 0.589 0.633


Table XVII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the GammaMed HDR Plus source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01664 0.01685 0.01719 0.01749 0.01771 0.01798 0.01795 0.01711 0.0156 0.01386 0.01211 0.01047

6 0.0223 0.0228 0.0235 0.0239 0.0243 0.0246 0.0243 0.0226 0.0200 0.01720 0.01458 0.01229

5 0.0317 0.0326 0.0337 0.0347 0.0352 0.0354 0.0344 0.0307 0.0259 0.0214 0.01755 0.01435

4 0.0484 0.0501 0.0521 0.0538 0.0548 0.0543 0.0513 0.0428 0.0339 0.0266 0.0209 0.01659

3 0.0827 0.0880 0.0935 0.0965 0.0970 0.0913 0.0816 0.0607 0.0442 0.0325 0.0244 0.01878

2 0.1798 0.201 0.215 0.216 0.205 0.1711 0.1367 0.0857 0.0560 0.0385 0.0277 0.0207

1.5 0.323 0.364 0.384 0.364 0.326 0.243 0.1776 0.0998 0.0617 0.0412 0.0291 0.0215

1 0.707 0.861 0.820 0.685 0.545 0.343 0.225 0.1130 0.0664 0.0432 0.0302 0.0221

0.5 3.34 3.47 2.21 1.363 0.892 0.449 0.266 0.1225 0.0696 0.0446 0.0309 0.0224

0 4.02×108 15.70 4.32 1.966 1.117 0.501 0.283 0.1259 0.0707 0.0451 0.0311 0.0226

–0.5 2.17 3.46 2.20 1.362 0.891 0.449 0.265 0.1224 0.0696 0.0446 0.0308 0.0224

–1 0.505 0.853 0.820 0.684 0.545 0.343 0.224 0.1128 0.0664 0.0433 0.0302 0.0221

–1.5 0.227 0.356 0.382 0.363 0.326 0.243 0.1776 0.0997 0.0616 0.0411 0.0291 0.0215

–2 0.1304 0.1907 0.213 0.215 0.204 0.1713 0.1368 0.0857 0.0560 0.0385 0.0277 0.0207

–3 0.0605 0.0804 0.0916 0.0959 0.0967 0.0910 0.0814 0.0607 0.0442 0.0325 0.0244 0.01877

–4 0.0355 0.0445 0.0504 0.0533 0.0546 0.0542 0.0512 0.0427 0.0339 0.0266 0.0209 0.01659

–5 0.0236 0.0283 0.0317 0.0336 0.0346 0.0352 0.0343 0.0307 0.0259 0.0214 0.01754 0.01435

–6 0.01695 0.01974 0.0219 0.0231 0.0239 0.0244 0.0242 0.0225 0.0199 0.01720 0.01457 0.01229

–7 0.01279 0.01461 0.01599 0.01681 0.01737 0.01782 0.01788 0.01705 0.0156 0.01384 0.01210 0.01046

A.1.7. GI192M11 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

This source is composed of a cylindrical 192Ir active core with 3.5 mm active length and an active diameter of 0.6 mm covered by a 316L stainless steel capsule. A schematic view of this source is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG HDR model GI192M11 source.[71]

70 HEBD report Publications

The MC code GEANT4 (version 6.1) was used by Granero et al.[71] to estimate dose rate in water and air-kerma strength around the source. The code was benchmarked for HDR 192Ir sources by comparison of the dose rate distributions obtained with published data of Williamson et al.[47] and Daskalov et al.[93,169] for the mHDR-v1 and mHDR-v2, respectively. In the calculations, Compton scattering, photoelectric effect and Rayleigh scattering processes were used from the low-energy package of GEANT4. This low energy package uses the EPDL97 cross sections tabulation.[173] The 192Ir photon spectrum was taken from the NuDat database neglecting the -spectrum.[20] A cutoff energy of 10 keV for photons was used. Only collision kerma was scored using the linear track-length kerma estimator to estimate dose. The source was located in the center of a spherical 40 cm radius water phantom. The density of the water used in the simulation was 0.998 g/cm3 at 22 °C, as is recommended in the TG-43U1 report. Two different grid systems were used in order to obtain the dose rate in the form of away-along tables and in the form given by the TG-43 formalism. The first

one was composed of 400 800 0.05 cm thick and 0.05 cm high cylindrical rings concentric to the longitudinal source axis, and has been used to obtain the dose rate in Cartesian coordinates. To obtain the dose rate in polar coordinates following the TG-43 formalism, a grid system composed of

0.05 cm thick, concentric spherical sections and an angular width of 1° in the polar angle was used. The source was along the z-axis with positive z towards the source tip. The origin of the coordinates was located at the geometric center of the active core. The origin of the polar angle is at the tip side of the source. Standard deviations of the mean (k = 1) dose rate values of less than 0.5% were obtained, except along the longitudinal axis where 1% is reached. To estimate the air-kerma strength,

the source was located in a (4 4 4) m3 air volume. The composition and density used for the air in the simulation are the ones recommended in Table XIV of the TG-43U1 report[2] for air with relative humidity of 40%. Cylindrical cells 1 cm thick and 1 cm high located in the plane z = 0 were used to score air-kerma along the transverse axis of the source from y = 5 cm to y = 150 cm. Air-kerma

strength values were found to be well described by a linear equation kair y( ) y2= SK + by where the

slope b describes the deviation in kair y( ) y2

due to a buildup of scattered photons in air. The air-kerma

strength was derived with a statistical uncertainty (k = 1) in air-kerma values of less than 0.5%. They

derived = (1.108 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1. Taylor and Rogers[139] (Appendix A.1.1) studied this source with the same geometry and source

cable as in Granero et al.[71] obtaining = (1.112 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

Both studies provide similar TG-43 parameters. The values are only 0.36% different from

each other and the F(r, ) data are indistinguishable. The gL(r) data are also similar but the Taylor and

Rogers results are noisy. The average of values from both studies is taken as the consensus value

CON = (1.110 ± 0.004) cGy h–1 U–1 (Table IV). Due to the gL(r) data fluctuations in Taylor and


Rogers, the data from Granero et al. have been taken as CONgL(r), while the data from Taylor and

Rogers is selected for CONF(r, ) for Table V and Table XVIII. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XIX).

Table XVIII. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG model GI192M11 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

0 0.668 0.668 0.651 0.615 0.621 0.644 0.667 0.689 0.734 0.769

1 0.671 0.671 0.650 0.609 0.625 0.648 0.673 0.695 0.740 0.773

2 0.668 0.668 0.649 0.611 0.634 0.659 0.682 0.705 0.749 0.780

3 0.660 0.660 0.649 0.625 0.647 0.673 0.694 0.715 0.758 0.788

5 0.668 0.668 0.662 0.648 0.671 0.693 0.713 0.731 0.770 0.796

7 0.691 0.691 0.686 0.677 0.696 0.718 0.736 0.754 0.788 0.813

10 0.727 0.727 0.724 0.717 0.736 0.756 0.771 0.787 0.816 0.836

12 0.755 0.755 0.752 0.747 0.763 0.779 0.792 0.804 0.830 0.850

15 0.796 0.796 0.792 0.785 0.797 0.810 0.821 0.832 0.853 0.868

20 0.849 0.849 0.846 0.839 0.845 0.857 0.865 0.873 0.887 0.897

25 0.891 0.891 0.885 0.873 0.882 0.889 0.895 0.898 0.909 0.916

30 0.914 0.914 0.909 0.899 0.908 0.913 0.917 0.918 0.930 0.932

35 0.937 0.937 0.933 0.924 0.930 0.934 0.938 0.940 0.947 0.951

40 0.956 0.956 0.951 0.940 0.946 0.949 0.951 0.953 0.958 0.957

45 0.965 0.965 0.962 0.955 0.959 0.963 0.965 0.966 0.968 0.970

50 0.974 0.974 0.972 0.967 0.970 0.973 0.974 0.977 0.978 0.978

55 0.986 0.986 0.980 0.972 0.977 0.980 0.979 0.980 0.984 0.985

60 0.990 0.990 0.985 0.978 0.985 0.988 0.989 0.988 0.989 0.988

65 0.993 0.993 0.990 0.986 0.990 0.992 0.993 0.992 0.996 0.994

70 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.992 0.993 0.997 0.996 0.995 0.997 0.996

75 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.998 1.000 0.998

80 1.000 1.000 1.001 0.995 0.999 1.000 0.998 0.999 1.001 1.001

85 1.000 1.000 1.002 0.996 0.999 0.999 1.002 1.001 1.002 1.002

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

95 1.000 1.000 1.001 0.995 0.999 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.002 1.002

100 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.998 1.000 1.002 1.001 1.000 1.002

105 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.996 0.998 0.999 0.999 1.001 1.000

110 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.991 0.994 0.994 0.993 0.994 0.995 0.993

115 0.994 0.994 0.992 0.988 0.988 0.991 0.994 0.993 0.993 0.992

120 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.983 0.985 0.985 0.987 0.987 0.989 0.988

125 0.986 0.986 0.982 0.977 0.979 0.981 0.981 0.982 0.985 0.986

130 0.972 0.972 0.971 0.968 0.971 0.974 0.974 0.976 0.978 0.978

135 0.966 0.966 0.963 0.957 0.960 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.967 0.970

140 0.955 0.955 0.950 0.942 0.948 0.951 0.954 0.956 0.959 0.961

145 0.938 0.938 0.934 0.928 0.931 0.936 0.938 0.940 0.946 0.949

150 0.919 0.919 0.914 0.905 0.910 0.916 0.919 0.922 0.931 0.936

155 0.891 0.891 0.886 0.877 0.882 0.889 0.894 0.898 0.908 0.914

160 0.833 0.833 0.835 0.838 0.846 0.854 0.862 0.870 0.883 0.893

165 0.774 0.774 0.777 0.783 0.794 0.807 0.818 0.827 0.848 0.863

72 HEBD report

Table XVIII (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

168 0.725 0.725 0.729 0.737 0.752 0.769 0.783 0.797 0.821 0.842

170 0.685 0.685 0.690 0.699 0.719 0.738 0.754 0.769 0.800 0.822

173 0.614 0.614 0.620 0.632 0.655 0.679 0.700 0.719 0.760 0.788

175 0.554 0.554 0.560 0.573 0.600 0.626 0.652 0.674 0.723 0.759

177 0.458 0.458 0.466 0.482 0.513 0.544 0.575 0.606 0.668 0.713

178 0.461 0.461 0.467 0.478 0.500 0.521 0.543 0.565 0.620 0.675

179 0.330 0.330 0.338 0.352 0.381 0.410 0.439 0.468 0.540 0.612

180 0.243 0.243 0.252 0.268 0.300 0.332 0.365 0.397 0.478 0.559

Table XIX. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG model GI192M11 source.

Values inside the source are in italics. y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01628 0.01661 0.01692 0.01718 0.01745 0.01773 0.01774 0.01697 0.01551 0.01379 0.01199 0.01040

6 0.0219 0.0224 0.0229 0.0234 0.0239 0.0242 0.0241 0.0224 0.01988 0.01708 0.01449 0.01222

5 0.0309 0.0319 0.0328 0.0338 0.0345 0.0348 0.0341 0.0303 0.0257 0.0213 0.01746 0.01428

4 0.0470 0.0491 0.0512 0.0530 0.0539 0.0537 0.0507 0.0424 0.0337 0.0264 0.0208 0.01651

3 0.0809 0.0863 0.0916 0.0947 0.0953 0.0901 0.0807 0.0603 0.0438 0.0323 0.0243 0.01874

2 0.1761 0.1947 0.210 0.211 0.202 0.1694 0.1357 0.0851 0.0556 0.0383 0.0276 0.0207

1.5 0.313 0.354 0.376 0.357 0.321 0.241 0.1760 0.0992 0.0613 0.0409 0.0290 0.0214

1 0.711 0.838 0.806 0.676 0.540 0.339 0.223 0.1122 0.0660 0.0430 0.0300 0.0220

0.5 3.31 3.43 2.19 1.348 0.882 0.446 0.263 0.1217 0.0692 0.0444 0.0307 0.0224

0 3.82×108 15.50 4.30 1.955 1.110 0.497 0.281 0.1251 0.0703 0.0448 0.0309 0.0225

–0.5 1.281 3.44 2.19 1.354 0.884 0.446 0.263 0.1218 0.0693 0.0444 0.0307 0.0224

–1 0.310 0.833 0.810 0.678 0.541 0.339 0.222 0.1121 0.0661 0.0431 0.0300 0.0220

–1.5 0.1438 0.343 0.375 0.358 0.322 0.241 0.1762 0.0991 0.0611 0.0409 0.0290 0.0214

–2 0.0851 0.1837 0.208 0.211 0.202 0.1697 0.1359 0.0851 0.0557 0.0383 0.0276 0.0207

–3 0.0418 0.0769 0.0890 0.0941 0.0950 0.0902 0.0808 0.0603 0.0439 0.0323 0.0243 0.01869

–4 0.0257 0.0419 0.0488 0.0520 0.0535 0.0535 0.0508 0.0424 0.0337 0.0264 0.0208 0.01650

–5 0.01782 0.0269 0.0307 0.0327 0.0340 0.0346 0.0340 0.0304 0.0258 0.0213 0.01746 0.01429

–6 0.01328 0.01864 0.0211 0.0224 0.0233 0.0240 0.0240 0.0224 0.01986 0.01711 0.01448 0.01222

–7 0.01038 0.01372 0.01537 0.01633 0.01690 0.01755 0.01765 0.01694 0.01553 0.01377 0.01203 0.01039


A.1.8. Ir2.A85-2 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

This HDR source is shown in Figure 9 together with the coordinate axes used to give the dose rate tables and the TG-43 parameters for the sources. The HDR source is composed of a cylindrical pure iridium core (density 22.42 g/cm3) with 3.5 mm active length and with a diameter of 0.6 mm. The source is covered by a capsule made of 316L stainless steel. This design is very similar to the old E&Z BEBIG HDR source model GI192M11 with the main difference being that the external diameter of the outer capsule is 0.9 mm in this new source and 1 mm in the old one.

Figure 9. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG HDR model Ir2.A85-2 source.[174]

Publications

There is only one study of this source by Granero et al.[174] that accomplishes the prerequisites of Li et al.[17] This study used the GEANT4 code following the methodology outlined in Appendix A.1.7 for the GI192M11 source model and is validated for this very similar source. Consensus Data

Consensus data have been taken from the only publication available (Tables IV, V, and XX).

Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented (cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXI).

74 HEBD report

Table XX. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG model Ir2.A85-2 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.666 0.666 0.634 0.602 0.592 0.590 0.596 0.617 0.642 0.664 0.683 0.701 0.720 0.753

1 0.667 0.667 0.637 0.607 0.597 0.599 0.608 0.632 0.656 0.678 0.697 0.714 0.732 0.761

2 0.667 0.667 0.641 0.615 0.609 0.616 0.629 0.654 0.678 0.699 0.716 0.733 0.749 0.775

3 0.665 0.665 0.644 0.623 0.623 0.631 0.643 0.666 0.689 0.710 0.726 0.743 0.758 0.784

4 0.665 0.665 0.650 0.635 0.635 0.644 0.655 0.679 0.699 0.720 0.736 0.753 0.766 0.791

5 0.668 0.668 0.658 0.648 0.648 0.658 0.669 0.691 0.712 0.731 0.747 0.763 0.776 0.798

6 0.679 0.679 0.670 0.661 0.663 0.673 0.683 0.705 0.724 0.742 0.757 0.772 0.785 0.805

8 0.705 0.705 0.698 0.691 0.692 0.702 0.712 0.731 0.748 0.764 0.778 0.790 0.801 0.820

10 0.732 0.732 0.728 0.724 0.725 0.733 0.742 0.759 0.774 0.787 0.800 0.810 0.819 0.836

15 0.806 0.806 0.800 0.794 0.795 0.800 0.805 0.816 0.826 0.836 0.845 0.851 0.859 0.870

20 0.860 0.860 0.853 0.846 0.845 0.848 0.852 0.860 0.867 0.874 0.879 0.885 0.890 0.898

25 0.895 0.895 0.890 0.885 0.884 0.886 0.888 0.893 0.898 0.903 0.907 0.910 0.914 0.920

30 0.921 0.921 0.917 0.913 0.912 0.912 0.915 0.918 0.922 0.925 0.928 0.930 0.933 0.936

40 0.956 0.956 0.953 0.950 0.949 0.950 0.950 0.953 0.954 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.960 0.961

50 0.976 0.976 0.974 0.972 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.978

60 0.990 0.990 0.986 0.986 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.987 0.988 0.988

70 0.996 0.996 0.994 0.994 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.995

80 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.999

110 0.996 0.996 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995

120 0.991 0.991 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.989

130 0.974 0.974 0.973 0.972 0.971 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.975 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977

140 0.955 0.955 0.952 0.949 0.948 0.949 0.950 0.952 0.954 0.955 0.957 0.958 0.959 0.961

150 0.922 0.922 0.917 0.912 0.911 0.912 0.914 0.917 0.921 0.925 0.928 0.930 0.933 0.936

155 0.887 0.887 0.886 0.885 0.884 0.885 0.888 0.893 0.898 0.903 0.907 0.911 0.914 0.920

160 0.849 0.849 0.848 0.847 0.846 0.849 0.853 0.861 0.868 0.874 0.881 0.885 0.891 0.898

165 0.791 0.791 0.793 0.795 0.797 0.801 0.807 0.818 0.828 0.837 0.846 0.853 0.860 0.871

170 0.718 0.718 0.721 0.725 0.728 0.735 0.744 0.760 0.775 0.788 0.800 0.810 0.820 0.836

172 0.686 0.686 0.690 0.694 0.698 0.706 0.716 0.735 0.751 0.766 0.780 0.791 0.803 0.821

174 0.651 0.651 0.655 0.660 0.664 0.673 0.684 0.706 0.726 0.744 0.759 0.772 0.785 0.806

175 0.634 0.634 0.638 0.643 0.647 0.656 0.668 0.691 0.711 0.730 0.747 0.762 0.775 0.798

176 0.618 0.618 0.622 0.627 0.631 0.640 0.652 0.676 0.697 0.717 0.735 0.751 0.765 0.790

177 0.599 0.599 0.604 0.610 0.615 0.626 0.638 0.662 0.685 0.706 0.725 0.742 0.756 0.782

178 0.591 0.591 0.595 0.599 0.602 0.609 0.622 0.647 0.670 0.693 0.713 0.730 0.746 0.771

179 0.589 0.589 0.589 0.590 0.590 0.591 0.602 0.626 0.649 0.676 0.696 0.713 0.728 0.759

180 0.590 0.590 0.588 0.587 0.585 0.582 0.592 0.613 0.636 0.666 0.686 0.704 0.718 0.755


Table XXI. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG model Ir2.A85-2 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01573 0.01644 0.01683 0.01715 0.01740 0.01774 0.01776 0.01699 0.01554 0.01376 0.01201 0.01038

6 0.0211 0.0222 0.0228 0.0234 0.0239 0.0243 0.0241 0.0224 0.01984 0.01710 0.01447 0.01220

5 0.0298 0.0317 0.0328 0.0338 0.0345 0.0349 0.0341 0.0304 0.0257 0.0212 0.01741 0.01424

4 0.0452 0.0487 0.0511 0.0531 0.0541 0.0537 0.0509 0.0424 0.0336 0.0264 0.0207 0.01647

3 0.0774 0.0858 0.0918 0.0952 0.0956 0.0904 0.0808 0.0602 0.0438 0.0323 0.0242 0.01866

2 0.1689 0.1951 0.211 0.212 0.203 0.1698 0.1357 0.0850 0.0555 0.0382 0.0275 0.0206

1.5 0.298 0.357 0.378 0.360 0.322 0.241 0.1761 0.0989 0.0611 0.0408 0.0289 0.0214

1 0.684 0.847 0.815 0.680 0.542 0.339 0.222 0.1119 0.0659 0.0429 0.0299 0.0219

0.5 3.22 3.45 2.19 1.354 0.884 0.446 0.263 0.1215 0.0690 0.0443 0.0306 0.0223

0 3.80×108 15.48 4.29 1.953 1.109 0.497 0.280 0.1250 0.0702 0.0447 0.0308 0.0224

–0.5 2.99 3.44 2.19 1.354 0.885 0.446 0.263 0.1214 0.0690 0.0443 0.0306 0.0223

–1 0.676 0.849 0.815 0.679 0.542 0.339 0.222 0.1120 0.0659 0.0429 0.0299 0.0219

–1.5 0.294 0.358 0.379 0.360 0.322 0.241 0.1760 0.0989 0.0611 0.0408 0.0289 0.0213

–2 0.1677 0.1959 0.212 0.213 0.203 0.1697 0.1356 0.0849 0.0555 0.0382 0.0275 0.0206

–3 0.0769 0.0857 0.0920 0.0954 0.0958 0.0904 0.0807 0.0602 0.0438 0.0323 0.0243 0.01866

–4 0.0447 0.0485 0.0513 0.0532 0.0542 0.0538 0.0509 0.0424 0.0336 0.0264 0.0207 0.01647

–5 0.0298 0.0315 0.0328 0.0338 0.0345 0.0349 0.0341 0.0304 0.0257 0.0212 0.01740 0.01424

–6 0.0212 0.0221 0.0228 0.0234 0.0239 0.0243 0.0241 0.0224 0.01983 0.01708 0.01446 0.01219

–7 0.01580 0.01637 0.01679 0.01715 0.01742 0.01776 0.01779 0.01700 0.01554 0.01375 0.01201 0.01038

A.1.9. M-19 (Source Production and Equipment) Source Description

The M-19 source was produced by the Source Production and Equipment Co., Inc. (Rose, LA) for use with the AccuSource HDR remote afterloader. The active core of this source is 3.5 mm in length with 0.65 mm diameter, while the physical source is 5.1 mm in length with an outer diameter of 1.17 mm, as shown in Figure 10. The distance from the physical tip of the source to the distal face is 0.65 mm.

Figure 10. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Source Production and Equipment M-19 source.[5]


Version 5.1.4 of the MCNP5 Monte Carlo computer code was used by Medich et al.[5] to study this source.192Ir photons were generated uniformly inside the iridium core with photon and secondary electron transport replicated, using default MCPLIB04 photo atomic cross-section tables. Simulations were performed for both water and air/vacuum computer models with a sufficient number of photon histories generated to obtain a Monte Carlo tally precision of approximately 1% or lower within each tally cell. All simulations were operated in the photon and electron transport mode (Mode: p,e in the MCNP code) so that both primary photons and resulting secondary electrons were properly transported. The 192Ir photon spectrum was simplified by disregarding photons with intensities below 0.1% and by omitting 192Ir source x-rays lower than 15 keV since transmission of these photons through the encapsulating steel shell is dosimetrically negligible. The resulting 192Ir spectrum uncertainty (0.5%) was calculated as the intensity weighted average of the uncertainty in each spectral line. The M-19 source was placed at the center of a spherical water phantom of 40 cm radius. Dosimetric data were determined at radial distances ranging from 0.5 cm to 10 cm (0.5 cm increments) and over angles ranging from 0° to 180° (10° increments) using the MCNP5 F6 energy deposition tally. Dosimetric data in a water phantom, suitable for use as an away-along table, were also generated for 1 mm3 tally volumes between ±10 cm along the source axis and out +10 cm away from the source axis using the MCNP5 *F4 Mesh track-length tally. Here, the phantom radius was adjusted to 50 cm to accommodate the outlying edges of the tally, roughly 14 cm from source center, to allow for full scattering conditions within the phantom. The air-kerma strength in free space, sK, was calculated centering the M-19 source at the origin of an evacuated phantom in which a critical volume containing air at STP (standard temperature pressure) was added 100 cm from source center; dimensions of the critical volume were chosen to limit volumetric averaging errors to below 1%. The x-ray cutoff energy was chosen to be 10 keV; photons within the critical target with energies less than or equal to 10 keV were removed from the final air-kerma rate calculation. Medich et al., report

= (1.13 ± 0.03) cGy h–1 U–1.

Taylor and Rogers[139] (Appendix A.1.1) report = (1.114 ± 0.001) cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

The calculated by Medich et al.[5] is significantly higher than the rest of the HDR 192Ir source

models studied in this report. The average value of /GL(r0, 0) calculated for all sources in this report

is 1.124 cGy cm2 h–1 U–1 (maximum and minimum values 1.129 and 1.119, respectively) with a

standard deviation of 0.004 cGy cm2 h–1 U–1, i.e., all values lie in the interval of 1.5 standard

deviations. Nevertheless, the corresponding value of Medich et al., at 4.3 standard deviations is extremely unlikely. Because the M-19 does not present any characteristic (source core dimensions or encapsulation thickness) different from those of the rest of the HDR 192Ir sources, we adopt as

consensus data the value given by Taylor and Rogers that fulfills the mentioned condition: CON =

(1.114 ± 0.001) cGy h–1 U–1 (Table IV). gL(r) data in both studies are noisy and contain steps at

various r-values. F(r, ) data present differences at small and large angles. Because the gL(r) and


F(r, ) reported by Taylor and Rogers have better radial and angular mesh, a lower statistical uncertainty, and use a more modern cross-section library, these are taken as consenus datasets (Table V and Table XXII). Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXIII).

Table XXII. F(r, ) for the SPEC In. Co. model M-19 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

0 0.679 0.679 0.661 0.624 0.633 0.655 0.676 0.701 0.741 0.774

1 0.681 0.681 0.662 0.623 0.636 0.657 0.681 0.704 0.746 0.777

2 0.679 0.679 0.661 0.624 0.643 0.667 0.692 0.712 0.754 0.783

3 0.674 0.674 0.660 0.633 0.654 0.678 0.703 0.725 0.762 0.790

5 0.677 0.677 0.671 0.659 0.681 0.703 0.724 0.744 0.777 0.801

7 0.700 0.700 0.695 0.685 0.704 0.723 0.743 0.759 0.793 0.816

10 0.735 0.735 0.732 0.725 0.740 0.757 0.775 0.789 0.818 0.836

12 0.759 0.759 0.756 0.750 0.765 0.778 0.795 0.807 0.831 0.848

15 0.792 0.792 0.790 0.787 0.797 0.809 0.821 0.831 0.853 0.867

20 0.882 0.882 0.841 0.835 0.844 0.852 0.863 0.870 0.884 0.894

25 0.913 0.913 0.878 0.873 0.878 0.883 0.892 0.897 0.907 0.915

30 0.935 0.935 0.905 0.899 0.907 0.911 0.917 0.920 0.928 0.929

35 0.950 0.950 0.927 0.924 0.926 0.929 0.935 0.941 0.944 0.948

40 0.961 0.961 0.946 0.942 0.943 0.944 0.951 0.953 0.955 0.955

45 0.970 0.970 0.959 0.956 0.958 0.960 0.963 0.964 0.966 0.968

50 0.977 0.977 0.967 0.966 0.968 0.968 0.972 0.975 0.977 0.976

55 0.984 0.984 0.977 0.975 0.975 0.977 0.981 0.984 0.983 0.982

60 0.988 0.988 0.983 0.981 0.983 0.984 0.987 0.987 0.989 0.987

65 0.992 0.992 0.987 0.986 0.988 0.988 0.992 0.992 0.994 0.993

70 0.995 0.995 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.993 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.995

75 0.997 0.997 0.994 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.998

80 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.999 0.998 0.997 1.002 1.003 1.002 0.999

85 0.999 0.999 1.001 0.997 0.998 0.998 1.004 1.003 1.000 1.001

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

95 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.997 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.000

100 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.997 0.997 1.000 1.002 0.999 0.999

105 0.997 0.997 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.996 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.996

110 0.995 0.995 0.992 0.992 0.994 0.994 0.996 0.997 0.994 0.991

115 0.992 0.992 0.990 0.987 0.988 0.988 0.994 0.993 0.992 0.992

120 0.988 0.988 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.983 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.985

125 0.984 0.984 0.977 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.982 0.983 0.983 0.982

130 0.978 0.978 0.969 0.964 0.968 0.970 0.974 0.976 0.976 0.976

135 0.971 0.971 0.958 0.955 0.957 0.958 0.963 0.964 0.965 0.965

78 HEBD report

Table XXII (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

140 0.962 0.962 0.945 0.940 0.943 0.944 0.950 0.953 0.956 0.959

145 0.951 0.951 0.928 0.924 0.927 0.929 0.936 0.937 0.942 0.944

150 0.936 0.936 0.906 0.899 0.903 0.907 0.915 0.918 0.925 0.929

155 0.914 0.914 0.876 0.868 0.875 0.881 0.890 0.896 0.903 0.909

160 0.882 0.882 0.836 0.826 0.836 0.844 0.855 0.865 0.878 0.887

165 0.781 0.781 0.778 0.773 0.783 0.795 0.809 0.820 0.842 0.857

168 0.734 0.734 0.732 0.728 0.746 0.761 0.778 0.791 0.818 0.837

170 0.700 0.700 0.700 0.699 0.718 0.735 0.755 0.771 0.801 0.822

173 0.634 0.634 0.640 0.652 0.676 0.698 0.720 0.737 0.773 0.798

175 0.610 0.610 0.616 0.628 0.651 0.674 0.698 0.718 0.757 0.785

177 0.586 0.586 0.592 0.604 0.628 0.652 0.679 0.700 0.744 0.774

178 0.573 0.573 0.579 0.592 0.617 0.642 0.670 0.692 0.735 0.766

179 0.569 0.569 0.575 0.586 0.609 0.632 0.658 0.682 0.728 0.761

180 0.569 0.569 0.574 0.585 0.606 0.628 0.656 0.679 0.724 0.757

Table XXIII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the SPEC In. Co. model M-19 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01656 0.01683 0.01716 0.01741 0.01763 0.01786 0.01783 0.01701 0.01554 0.01383 0.01204 0.01046

6 0.0223 0.0227 0.0233 0.0237 0.0241 0.0243 0.0242 0.0225 0.01994 0.01711 0.01454 0.01228

5 0.0315 0.0325 0.0334 0.0341 0.0347 0.0349 0.0341 0.0305 0.0258 0.0214 0.01751 0.01433

4 0.0478 0.0499 0.0518 0.0534 0.0541 0.0537 0.0508 0.0425 0.0338 0.0266 0.0209 0.01657

3 0.0828 0.0879 0.0924 0.0951 0.0955 0.0902 0.0808 0.0604 0.0441 0.0325 0.0245 0.01881

2 0.1803 0.1979 0.211 0.211 0.202 0.1696 0.1361 0.0854 0.0558 0.0385 0.0278 0.0208

1.5 0.319 0.359 0.376 0.358 0.321 0.241 0.1764 0.0994 0.0616 0.0411 0.0291 0.0216

1 0.724 0.844 0.808 0.678 0.541 0.340 0.223 0.1126 0.0663 0.0433 0.0303 0.0221

0.5 3.37 3.42 2.19 1.355 0.885 0.447 0.264 0.1222 0.0696 0.0446 0.0309 0.0225

0 3.90×108 15.59 4.31 1.961 1.114 0.499 0.282 0.1259 0.0705 0.0449 0.0310 0.0226

–0.5 2.93 3.41 2.19 1.356 0.886 0.447 0.264 0.1221 0.0695 0.0445 0.0308 0.0225

–1 0.679 0.826 0.805 0.677 0.541 0.340 0.223 0.1127 0.0664 0.0432 0.0302 0.0221

–1.5 0.302 0.346 0.372 0.357 0.321 0.241 0.1765 0.0994 0.0615 0.0411 0.0292 0.0215

–2 0.1727 0.1902 0.207 0.210 0.201 0.1696 0.1358 0.0854 0.0558 0.0385 0.0278 0.0208

–3 0.0794 0.0843 0.0897 0.0934 0.0943 0.0900 0.0808 0.0604 0.0441 0.0325 0.0244 0.01876

–4 0.0464 0.0482 0.0503 0.0521 0.0532 0.0533 0.0508 0.0424 0.0338 0.0266 0.0209 0.01654

–5 0.0306 0.0314 0.0323 0.0332 0.0340 0.0345 0.0340 0.0304 0.0258 0.0213 0.01749 0.01433

–6 0.0217 0.0221 0.0226 0.0231 0.0235 0.0240 0.0240 0.0224 0.01988 0.01713 0.01451 0.01227

–7 0.01616 0.01641 0.01671 0.01696 0.01721 0.01758 0.01762 0.01691 0.01550 0.01379 0.01207 0.01043


A.1.10. Flexisource (Isodose Control) Source Description

The active core of the Isodose Control (Veenendaal, The Netherlands) source is a pure iridium cylinder (density 22.42 g/cm3) with an active length of 3.5 mm and a diameter of 0.6 mm. The stainless-steel-304 capsule (composition by weight: Fe 67.92%, Cr 19%, Ni 10%, Mn 2%, Si 1%, and C 0.08%, density 8 g/cm3) leads to outer dimensions of the source of 0.85 mm in diameter and 4.6 mm of total length. The 304 stainless steel cable is a cylinder of 5 mm length and 0.5 mm in diameter (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Isodose Control Flexisource.[175]

Publications

There are two studies about this source: the first one uses the GEANT4 code[175] as described by Granero et al.[71] in the study of the HDR source GI192M11 model (Appendix A.1.7); the second one by Taylor and Rogers[139] (Appendix A.1.1). Consensus Data

Both studies provide similar TG-43 parameters. values from both studies are only 0.6%

different from each other and the F(r, ) data are indistinguishable. The gL(r) data are also similar but

the Taylor and Rogers results are noisy. The average of values is taken as the consensus value

CON = (1.113 ± 0.011) cGy h–1 U–1 (Table IV). Due to the gL(r) data fluctuations in Taylor and Rogers, the data from Granero et al., have been taken as CONgL(r), while the data from Taylor and

Rogers is selected for CONF(r, ) in Table V and Table XXIV. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXV).

80 HEBD report

Table XXIV. F(r, ) for the Isodose Control model Flexisource. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

0 0.672 0.672 0.654 0.617 0.626 0.647 0.672 0.695 0.738 0.774

1 0.671 0.671 0.652 0.615 0.629 0.652 0.678 0.699 0.744 0.777

2 0.669 0.669 0.651 0.615 0.638 0.664 0.688 0.711 0.751 0.783

3 0.663 0.663 0.652 0.629 0.650 0.677 0.699 0.719 0.759 0.789

5 0.671 0.671 0.665 0.653 0.676 0.698 0.719 0.737 0.775 0.802

7 0.694 0.694 0.690 0.682 0.703 0.725 0.743 0.760 0.792 0.816

10 0.735 0.735 0.731 0.725 0.744 0.763 0.780 0.794 0.821 0.841

12 0.762 0.762 0.760 0.756 0.770 0.785 0.799 0.812 0.835 0.854

15 0.803 0.803 0.799 0.791 0.804 0.817 0.829 0.839 0.857 0.873

20 0.852 0.852 0.850 0.845 0.851 0.861 0.870 0.878 0.889 0.898

25 0.892 0.892 0.887 0.878 0.886 0.893 0.899 0.904 0.912 0.920

30 0.917 0.917 0.913 0.904 0.911 0.917 0.921 0.922 0.932 0.936

35 0.936 0.936 0.933 0.928 0.932 0.936 0.941 0.943 0.949 0.953

40 0.955 0.955 0.951 0.944 0.948 0.951 0.953 0.955 0.958 0.961

45 0.964 0.964 0.962 0.957 0.960 0.964 0.967 0.968 0.967 0.970

50 0.973 0.973 0.972 0.969 0.971 0.973 0.975 0.978 0.978 0.980

55 0.986 0.986 0.979 0.975 0.979 0.981 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.986

60 0.990 0.990 0.984 0.982 0.985 0.987 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.989

65 0.993 0.993 0.989 0.988 0.990 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.993

70 0.996 0.996 0.993 0.993 0.994 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.995 0.996

75 0.997 0.997 0.995 0.997 0.996 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

80 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.995 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.001 1.002 1.001

85 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.998 0.999 0.999 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

95 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.995 0.999 1.001 1.003 1.003 1.000 1.002

100 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.995 0.998 1.000 1.004 1.002 0.999 0.999

105 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.993 0.996 0.997 0.999 1.001 1.000 1.002

110 0.996 0.996 0.993 0.992 0.993 0.993 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.994

115 0.994 0.994 0.991 0.986 0.989 0.991 0.995 0.995 0.992 0.994

120 0.990 0.990 0.986 0.985 0.984 0.985 0.988 0.990 0.987 0.988

125 0.985 0.985 0.979 0.977 0.979 0.982 0.984 0.983 0.983 0.985

130 0.972 0.972 0.971 0.968 0.971 0.974 0.976 0.977 0.978 0.979

135 0.963 0.963 0.962 0.959 0.961 0.965 0.967 0.967 0.966 0.970

140 0.952 0.952 0.950 0.945 0.949 0.952 0.955 0.959 0.961 0.963

145 0.937 0.937 0.935 0.932 0.933 0.938 0.942 0.943 0.946 0.951

150 0.918 0.918 0.915 0.908 0.914 0.919 0.922 0.925 0.932 0.937

155 0.891 0.891 0.888 0.881 0.887 0.895 0.900 0.905 0.913 0.919

160 0.839 0.839 0.841 0.845 0.853 0.861 0.871 0.878 0.890 0.898

165 0.783 0.783 0.787 0.793 0.806 0.819 0.831 0.840 0.857 0.874

168 0.748 0.748 0.751 0.758 0.770 0.786 0.802 0.812 0.834 0.855

170 0.711 0.711 0.715 0.724 0.741 0.760 0.776 0.791 0.818 0.838


Table XXIV (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

173 0.659 0.659 0.663 0.673 0.693 0.715 0.733 0.750 0.785 0.809

175 0.614 0.614 0.620 0.631 0.652 0.678 0.701 0.720 0.760 0.791

177 0.542 0.542 0.550 0.566 0.599 0.631 0.660 0.684 0.729 0.766

178 0.474 0.474 0.487 0.512 0.564 0.599 0.632 0.659 0.712 0.751

179 0.440 0.440 0.453 0.480 0.534 0.571 0.606 0.635 0.693 0.734

180 0.442 0.442 0.452 0.473 0.514 0.555 0.591 0.625 0.680 0.722

Table XXV. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Isodose Control model Flexisource. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01642 0.01672 0.01701 0.01730 0.01758 0.01788 0.01786 0.01705 0.01559 0.0138 0.01204 0.01042

6 0.0221 0.0226 0.0231 0.0236 0.0241 0.0244 0.0242 0.0225 0.0200 0.01713 0.01451 0.01226

5 0.0312 0.0322 0.0332 0.0342 0.0348 0.0351 0.0343 0.0305 0.0258 0.0213 0.01750 0.01432

4 0.0474 0.0496 0.0518 0.0537 0.0545 0.0541 0.0511 0.0426 0.0338 0.0265 0.0208 0.01654

3 0.0815 0.0870 0.0927 0.0957 0.0961 0.0907 0.0812 0.0605 0.0441 0.0324 0.0244 0.01875

2 0.1778 0.197 0.212 0.213 0.203 0.1702 0.1361 0.0854 0.0558 0.0384 0.0277 0.0207

1.5 0.315 0.359 0.379 0.360 0.323 0.241 0.1765 0.0995 0.0615 0.0410 0.0290 0.0215

1 0.715 0.848 0.812 0.680 0.542 0.340 0.223 0.1125 0.0662 0.0431 0.0301 0.0221

0.5 3.34 3.45 2.20 1.354 0.886 0.447 0.264 0.1219 0.0694 0.0445 0.0307 0.0224

0 3.85×108 15.55 4.31 1.959 1.113 0.498 0.281 0.1254 0.0704 0.0449 0.0309 0.0225

–0.5 2.31 3.45 2.20 1.357 0.885 0.446 0.264 0.1220 0.0696 0.0445 0.0308 0.0224

–1 0.548 0.850 0.815 0.682 0.543 0.340 0.223 0.1123 0.0663 0.0432 0.0301 0.0220

–1.5 0.250 0.357 0.380 0.361 0.323 0.242 0.1766 0.0994 0.0613 0.0411 0.0291 0.0214

–2 0.1460 0.194 0.212 0.213 0.203 0.1704 0.1363 0.0854 0.0559 0.0384 0.0277 0.0207

–3 0.0699 0.0842 0.0921 0.0959 0.0962 0.0909 0.0813 0.0605 0.0440 0.0324 0.0244 0.01872

–4 0.0418 0.0473 0.0511 0.0535 0.0546 0.0541 0.0512 0.0426 0.0337 0.0265 0.0208 0.01651

–5 0.0281 0.0305 0.0325 0.0339 0.0348 0.0352 0.0343 0.0305 0.0259 0.0213 0.01748 0.01431

–6 0.0200 0.0213 0.0225 0.0233 0.0240 0.0244 0.0242 0.0225 0.0199 0.01717 0.01450 0.01225

–7 0.01506 0.01578 0.01651 0.01706 0.01745 0.01786 0.01787 0.01707 0.01559 0.01382 0.01207 0.01042

A.2. Pulsed Dose Rate 192Ir sources A.2.1. GammaMed PDR 12i (Varian Medical Systems) Source Description

A 1.1 mm external diameter, 3.36 mm long 192Ir source is used in the GammaMed 12i PDR system. The source design (Figure 12) incorporates an active core of length 0.5 mm and diameter 0.6 mm, whose center is located 2.61 mm from the source tip. A 1.4 mm long, 0.6 mm diameter aluminum plug is also located within the source capsule, distal to the active core. The encapsulating

82 HEBD report material is stainless steel having a sidewall thickness of 0.2 mm. The active core and plug are the same as those in the GammaMed Plus source.

Figure 12. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed PDR 12i source.[69]

Publications

Pérez-Calatayud et al.[69] used the GEANT3 MC code[171] as previously described in Appendix A.1.4 with the same methodology in the study of the Buchler source.[64] Taylor and Rogers[139] also studied this source using previously described methods (Appendix A.1.1). Consensus Data

Both studies adhere to recommendations for MC dosimetry given in Li et al.[17] and the TG-

43U1 report.[2] Reported values differ by 0.6%. gL(r) agree to within 1% (and mostly to within 0.5%) over the range r = 0.2 cm to 10 cm after correction of the Pérez-Calatayud et al.[69] data to

reflect unbounded scattering conditions. F(r, ) agree everywhere to within 2% (and mostly to within

1%). L = 0.5 mm was used to calculate GL(r, ) in both studies. The average of the published values,

CON = (1.126 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1 (Table XXVI) is recommended. For CONgL(r), data from Pérez-Calatayud et al.[69] corrected to unbounded scattering conditions and presented in Table XXVII are recommended, as it was obtained scoring dose and exhibits fewer fluctuations than the Taylor and

Rogers[139] data, especially near the reference distance r = 1 cm. For the CONF(r, ), data from Pérez-Calatayud et al.[69] reproduced in Table XXVIII are recommended, as they were obtained with more complete angular sampling near the longitudinal axis of the source. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXIX).


Table XXVI. Dose rate constant for PDR sources.

CON Statistical uncertainty CON /GL(r, )

Source Name (Manufacturer) [cGy·h–1·U–1] (k = 1) [cGy cm2 h–1 U–1]

GammaMed PDR 12i (Varian) 1.126 0.3% 1.126

GammaMed PDR Plus (Varian) 1.123 0.3% 1.123

mPDR-v1 (Nucletron) 1.120 0.6% 1.121

Ir2.A85-1 (E&Z BEBIG) 1.124 1.0% 1.124

Table XXVII. Radial dose function values for PDR sources. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics. In [brackets] are the corrected values from bounded to unbounded geometry.

gL(r)

Varian GammaMed

PDR 12i

Varian GammaMed

PDR Plus Nucletron mPDR-v1

E&Z BEBIG Ir2.A85-1

r [cm] L = 0.05 cm L = 0.05 cm L = 0.12 cm L = 0.05 cm

0 1.009 1.005 1.011 0.997

0.2 [1.009] 1.005 1.011

0.25 [1.007] 1.000 1.007 0.997

0.5 [0.999] 0.994 1.002 0.997

0.75 [1.000] 0.998 1.001 0.999

1 1 1 1 1

1.5 [1.002] 1.003 1.002 1.003

2 [1.006] 1.008 1.005 1.006

3 [1.008] 1.012 1.009 1.008

4 [1.008] 1.014 1.006 1.007

5 [1.007] 1.012 1.007 1.004

6 [1.002] 1.007 1.001 0.997

8 [0.985] 0.988 0.983 0.975

10 [0.960] 0.954 0.947 0.943

84 HEBD report

Table XXVIII. F(r, ) for the GammaMed PDR 12i source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10

0 0.943 0.943 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.956 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.963 0.969

1 0.943 0.943 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.961 0.963 0.969

2 0.943 0.943 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.956 0.960 0.960 0.961 0.965 0.970

3 0.943 0.943 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.956 0.960 0.960 0.962 0.966 0.970

4 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.956 0.960 0.960 0.962 0.966 0.971

5 0.944 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.947 0.948 0.949 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.956 0.960 0.960 0.963 0.967 0.972

6 0.946 0.946 0.946 0.947 0.947 0.947 0.950 0.949 0.950 0.954 0.953 0.954 0.956 0.961 0.960 0.963 0.966 0.971

7 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.949 0.949 0.951 0.951 0.950 0.955 0.955 0.955 0.956 0.961 0.961 0.964 0.967 0.972

8 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.949 0.951 0.951 0.950 0.954 0.955 0.955 0.956 0.962 0.962 0.965 0.968 0.973

9 0.946 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.949 0.950 0.951 0.952 0.951 0.956 0.956 0.956 0.958 0.963 0.963 0.966 0.968 0.973

10 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.950 0.951 0.952 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.957 0.957 0.957 0.959 0.963 0.965 0.967 0.969 0.974

15 0.961 0.961 0.963 0.964 0.965 0.967 0.966 0.966 0.966 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.970 0.971 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.980

20 0.970 0.970 0.976 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.981 0.980 0.983 0.984 0.984 0.987

30 0.975 0.975 0.992 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.994 0.995 0.995

40 0.987 0.987 0.998 0.999 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.001 0.999 1.000 0.999

50 0.993 0.993 1.001 1.003 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.001 1.002 1.001

60 0.996 0.996 1.003 1.005 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.004 1.002 1.002 1.003

70 0.996 0.996 1.003 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.004 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.002

80 0.995 0.995 1.001 1.003 1.002 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.995 0.995 1.001 1.002 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001

110 0.996 0.996 1.002 1.004 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.000

120 0.994 0.994 1.001 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.001 1.003 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000

130 0.988 0.988 0.997 0.999 1.000 1.000 0.998 1.000 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997

140 0.978 0.978 0.990 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.993 0.994 0.993 0.993 0.993

150 0.973 0.973 0.981 0.984 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.984 0.985 0.984 0.986 0.985 0.986 0.986

160 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.973 0.973

165 0.942 0.942 0.946 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.953 0.951 0.953 0.952 0.954 0.956 0.957 0.959 0.959 0.961 0.964

170 0.915 0.915 0.915 0.915 0.915 0.915 0.915 0.917 0.917 0.917 0.920 0.921 0.923 0.926 0.932 0.935 0.942 0.946

171 0.906 0.906 0.906 0.906 0.905 0.905 0.906 0.908 0.908 0.908 0.909 0.910 0.913 0.917 0.923 0.927 0.936 0.941

172 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.892 0.893 0.893 0.893 0.895 0.895 0.896 0.897 0.898 0.901 0.906 0.912 0.916 0.928 0.934

173 0.881 0.881 0.881 0.881 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.881 0.881 0.876 0.882 0.883 0.886 0.892 0.898 0.902 0.918 0.925

174 0.819 0.819 0.826 0.833 0.840 0.847 0.856 0.865 0.866 0.857 0.865 0.864 0.867 0.875 0.880 0.884 0.904 0.913

175 1.434 1.434 1.357 1.279 1.202 1.124 1.027 0.930 0.833 0.833 0.836 0.841 0.844 0.854 0.858 0.862 0.885 0.898

176 0.649 0.649 0.666 0.682 0.699 0.716 0.738 0.759 0.780 0.801 0.806 0.812 0.816 0.828 0.830 0.835 0.861 0.878

177 0.683 0.683 0.688 0.692 0.697 0.702 0.708 0.714 0.720 0.726 0.738 0.750 0.774 0.789 0.790 0.798 0.827 0.850

178 0.583 0.583 0.589 0.595 0.601 0.608 0.615 0.623 0.631 0.638 0.654 0.669 0.685 0.700 0.731 0.746 0.778 0.809

179 0.537 0.537 0.542 0.546 0.550 0.555 0.560 0.565 0.571 0.576 0.587 0.597 0.608 0.619 0.640 0.662 0.704 0.747

180 0.468 0.468 0.473 0.478 0.483 0.488 0.494 0.500 0.506 0.513 0.525 0.537 0.550 0.562 0.586 0.611 0.660 0.709


Table XXIX. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the GammaMed PDR 12i source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.0219 0.0219 0.0219 0.0218 0.0216 0.0212 0.0206 0.01893 0.01694 0.01483 0.01283 0.01105

6 0.0301 0.0301 0.0300 0.0297 0.0294 0.0287 0.0276 0.0247 0.0214 0.01819 0.01531 0.01286

5 0.0435 0.0434 0.0431 0.0427 0.0421 0.0406 0.0384 0.0330 0.0274 0.0224 0.01823 0.01490

4 0.0681 0.0679 0.0672 0.0661 0.0648 0.0610 0.0561 0.0453 0.0353 0.0275 0.0215 0.01708

3 0.1202 0.1194 0.1174 0.1147 0.1108 0.0998 0.0870 0.0631 0.0455 0.0333 0.0250 0.01922

2 0.269 0.266 0.257 0.243 0.224 0.1810 0.1420 0.0875 0.0569 0.0391 0.0282 0.0211

1.5 0.475 0.465 0.440 0.397 0.347 0.252 0.1819 0.1012 0.0624 0.0417 0.0295 0.0218

1 1.0645 1.022 0.891 0.720 0.565 0.349 0.227 0.1139 0.0669 0.0437 0.0305 0.0224

0.5 4.26 3.56 2.26 1.392 0.905 0.453 0.267 0.1229 0.0699 0.0449 0.0311 0.0227

0 3.86×109 18.07 4.50 2.00 1.126 0.502 0.283 0.1261 0.0710 0.0453 0.0313 0.0228

–0.5 2.15 3.53 2.24 1.388 0.903 0.453 0.267 0.1229 0.0699 0.0449 0.0311 0.0227

–1 0.550 1.000 0.883 0.715 0.562 0.348 0.227 0.1137 0.0669 0.0436 0.0305 0.0224

–1.5 0.251 0.445 0.436 0.394 0.344 0.251 0.1814 0.1010 0.0623 0.0416 0.0295 0.0218

–2 0.1451 0.245 0.252 0.241 0.222 0.1798 0.1413 0.0873 0.0568 0.0391 0.0281 0.0211

–3 0.0678 0.1045 0.1123 0.1125 0.1096 0.0989 0.0863 0.0628 0.0453 0.0332 0.0249 0.01918

–4 0.0399 0.0573 0.0624 0.0638 0.0635 0.0604 0.0556 0.0449 0.0351 0.0273 0.0214 0.01703

–5 0.0266 0.0354 0.0392 0.0407 0.0409 0.0400 0.0380 0.0327 0.0272 0.0222 0.01815 0.01484

–6 0.01914 0.0240 0.0266 0.0279 0.0284 0.0281 0.0272 0.0244 0.0212 0.01807 0.01523 0.01280

–7 0.01450 0.01742 0.01930 0.0202 0.0206 0.0207 0.0203 0.01872 0.01679 0.01472 0.01276 0.01099

A.2.2. GammaMed PDR Plus (Varian Medical Systems) Source Description

A 0.9 mm external diameter, 2.92 mm long 192Ir source is used in the GammaMed Plus PDR system. The source design (Figure 13) incorporates an active core of length 0.5 mm and diameter 0.6 mm, whose center is located 2.37 mm from the source tip. A 1.4 mm long, 0.6 mm diameter aluminum plug is also located within the source capsule, distal to the active core. The encapsulating material is stainless steel having a sidewall thickness of 0.1 mm.

Figure 13. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Varian Medical Systems GammaMed PDR Plus source.[69]


Pérez-Calatayud et al.[69] used the MC code GEANT3[171] to score dose in a water cylinder 40 cm in length and 40 cm in diameter surrounding the source and 6 cm of stainless steel cable. Additional details are in Appendix A.1.4 about the methodology followed by the same research group in the study of the Buchler source.[64] Taylor and Rogers[139] used BrachyDose[132] to score kerma using a track-length estimator in a water cube of side 80 cm surrounding the source and 6 cm of cable. See Appendix A.1.1 for additional details about this study. Consensus Data

Both studies adhere to recommendations for MC dosimetry given in Li et al.[17] and TG-

43U1.[2] Reported values agree to within 0.4%. gL(r) agree to within 1% over the range r = 0.2 cm to 10 cm after correction of the Pérez-Calatayud et al. data to reflect unbounded scattering

conditions.[69] F(r, ) agree everywhere to within 1% except near = 0°, where agreement is within 2%. An active length L = 0.5 mm was used to calculate the geometry function in both studies. The

reported dosimetric data is of high quality. The average of the published values was used for CON =

(1.123 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1 and is recommended (see Table XXVI). For CONgL(r), data from Taylor and Rogers[139] reproduced in Table XXVII are recommended, as they were calculated in a large

phantom that closely approximates unbounded scattering conditions. For CONF(r, ), data from Pérez-Calatayud et al.[69] reproduced in Table XXX are recommended, as they were obtained with more complete angular sampling near the longitudinal axis of the source. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXXI).


Table XXX. F(r, ) for the GammaMed PDR Plus source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 5 6 8 10

0 0.940 0.940 0.940 0.940 0.948 0.951 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.954 0.954 0.960 0.960 0.965

1 0.941 0.941 0.941 0.941 0.949 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.954 0.956 0.961 0.961 0.969

2 0.946 0.946 0.944 0.941 0.949 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.954 0.955 0.957 0.958 0.958 0.959 0.968 0.970 0.976

3 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.945 0.951 0.953 0.953 0.953 0.954 0.955 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.962 0.969 0.970 0.976

4 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.949 0.955 0.957 0.957 0.957 0.957 0.958 0.962 0.962 0.961 0.961 0.964 0.969 0.971 0.976

5 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.951 0.956 0.957 0.957 0.957 0.957 0.959 0.962 0.963 0.961 0.961 0.965 0.969 0.971 0.977

6 0.947 0.947 0.949 0.951 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.959 0.958 0.960 0.962 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.968 0.971 0.973 0.977

7 0.948 0.948 0.951 0.955 0.959 0.960 0.962 0.962 0.962 0.962 0.963 0.963 0.963 0.966 0.970 0.972 0.974 0.978

8 0.951 0.951 0.955 0.959 0.962 0.962 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.965 0.965 0.968 0.972 0.974 0.976 0.979

9 0.951 0.951 0.955 0.960 0.963 0.962 0.965 0.966 0.965 0.965 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.969 0.974 0.975 0.977 0.980

10 0.956 0.956 0.961 0.965 0.967 0.966 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.970 0.971 0.970 0.971 0.976 0.977 0.978 0.981

15 0.969 0.969 0.973 0.977 0.978 0.977 0.980 0.979 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.985 0.984 0.986 0.987

20 0.973 0.973 0.985 0.988 0.990 0.989 0.991 0.989 0.992 0.990 0.989 0.990 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.990 0.992 0.992

30 0.979 0.979 0.995 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

40 0.985 0.985 1.000 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002

50 0.990 0.990 1.003 1.005 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.003

60 0.992 0.992 1.005 1.006 1.007 1.006 1.005 1.006 1.006 1.005 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.005 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.003

70 0.993 0.993 1.004 1.005 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.006 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.003

80 0.999 0.999 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.998 0.998 1.002 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001

110 0.992 0.992 1.003 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.001 1.003 1.002 1.001 1.001 1.001

120 0.989 0.989 1.001 1.003 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.004 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.003 1.002 1.001 1.000 1.001

130 0.985 0.985 0.998 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.001 0.999 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999

140 0.977 0.977 0.994 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.996 0.998 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.995

150 0.970 0.970 0.987 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.992 0.991 0.991 0.990

160 0.956 0.956 0.972 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.979 0.981

165 0.956 0.956 0.958 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.961 0.962 0.962 0.963 0.965 0.966 0.967 0.969 0.967 0.970 0.970 0.972

170 0.938 0.938 0.937 0.937 0.933 0.933 0.934 0.935 0.936 0.937 0.939 0.939 0.939 0.944 0.944 0.949 0.954 0.956

171 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.925 0.923 0.921 0.925 0.924 0.925 0.928 0.929 0.928 0.935 0.936 0.941 0.949 0.951

172 0.908 0.908 0.910 0.912 0.912 0.912 0.912 0.912 0.912 0.912 0.916 0.918 0.917 0.925 0.928 0.933 0.942 0.945

173 0.896 0.896 0.897 0.898 0.899 0.899 0.899 0.899 0.899 0.899 0.903 0.903 0.903 0.913 0.916 0.921 0.933 0.937

174 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.881 0.883 0.883 0.883 0.884 0.885 0.887 0.887 0.897 0.903 0.908 0.922 0.929

175 0.823 0.823 0.832 0.841 0.850 0.859 0.859 0.859 0.859 0.859 0.863 0.865 0.866 0.878 0.887 0.892 0.906 0.917

176 0.814 0.814 0.815 0.817 0.818 0.820 0.822 0.823 0.824 0.831 0.836 0.836 0.840 0.851 0.866 0.872 0.887 0.904

177 0.744 0.744 0.749 0.755 0.760 0.766 0.773 0.780 0.780 0.790 0.797 0.798 0.804 0.814 0.836 0.844 0.860 0.884

178 0.568 0.568 0.581 0.595 0.608 0.622 0.639 0.656 0.673 0.690 0.724 0.729 0.739 0.756 0.786 0.799 0.816 0.852

179 0.855 0.855 0.852 0.850 0.847 0.845 0.841 0.838 0.835 0.831 0.825 0.818 0.812 0.805 0.792 0.779 0.753 0.802

180 0.962 0.962 0.955 0.948 0.941 0.934 0.925 0.916 0.907 0.899 0.881 0.864 0.846 0.829 0.794 0.759 0.689 0.694

88 HEBD report

Table XXXI. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the GammaMed PDR Plus source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

7 0.0220 0.0222 0.0221 0.0220 0.0219 0.0214 0.0208 0.01910 0.01704 0.01486 0.01281 0.01098

6 0.0302 0.0304 0.0303 0.0301 0.0298 0.0290 0.0279 0.0249 0.0215 0.01826 0.01532 0.01282

5 0.0434 0.0436 0.0435 0.0433 0.0428 0.0411 0.0388 0.0333 0.0275 0.0225 0.01828 0.01489

4 0.0679 0.0681 0.0677 0.0669 0.0656 0.0618 0.0568 0.0455 0.0355 0.0276 0.0216 0.01710

3 0.1203 0.1208 0.1191 0.1164 0.1123 0.1008 0.0876 0.0635 0.0457 0.0334 0.0251 0.01926

2 0.2694 0.268 0.260 0.246 0.226 0.182 0.1426 0.0879 0.0572 0.0393 0.0283 0.0212

1.5 0.4769 0.471 0.445 0.400 0.348 0.253 0.1824 0.1015 0.0627 0.0418 0.0296 0.0219

1 1.069 1.032 0.896 0.721 0.565 0.349 0.228 0.1141 0.0672 0.0438 0.0306 0.0225

0.5 4.21 3.56 2.25 1.389 0.904 0.453 0.267 0.1232 0.0702 0.0451 0.0312 0.0228

0 3.82×109 17.91 4.46 1.991 1.123 0.501 0.283 0.1263 0.0712 0.0455 0.0314 0.0229

–0.5 4.26 3.53 2.24 1.384 0.902 0.452 0.267 0.1231 0.0702 0.0450 0.0312 0.0228

–1 1.049 1.010 0.886 0.716 0.563 0.348 0.227 0.1140 0.0671 0.0438 0.0306 0.0224

–1.5 0.4589 0.453 0.439 0.395 0.345 0.251 0.1818 0.1013 0.0626 0.0417 0.0296 0.0219

–2 0.2543 0.251 0.255 0.243 0.223 0.1806 0.1419 0.0877 0.0571 0.0392 0.0282 0.0211

–3 0.1091 0.1077 0.1148 0.1143 0.1108 0.0998 0.0869 0.0632 0.0455 0.0333 0.0250 0.01923

–4 0.0590 0.0592 0.0641 0.0651 0.0646 0.0611 0.0562 0.0452 0.0353 0.0275 0.0215 0.01705

–5 0.0361 0.0376 0.0405 0.0415 0.0415 0.0405 0.0384 0.0330 0.0274 0.0224 0.01821 0.01484

–6 0.0239 0.0256 0.0277 0.0285 0.0289 0.0285 0.0275 0.0247 0.0214 0.01815 0.01524 0.01277

–7 0.01659 0.01852 0.0201 0.0207 0.0211 0.0210 0.0205 0.01889 0.01689 0.01475 0.01273 0.01092

A.2.3. mPDR-v1 (Nucletron) Source Description

The microSelectron PDR is a single 1 Ci (4.1×103 U) source of 192Ir with active core 1.2 mm long and 0.6 mm in diameter (Figure 14). Like the HDR 192Ir sources of this vendor, the source is encapsulated in a 316L stainless steel capsule with an outer diameter of 1.1 mm. The distance from the physical tip of the source to the distal face is 0.5 mm.

Figure 14. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Nucletron mPDR-v1 source.[55]


Publications

This source model has been evaluated by Karaiskos et al.[55] using a custom, yet well-benchmarked MC simulation code (see Karaiskos et al.[49] in Appendix A.1.1). The MC code used the detailed active core, encapsulation geometry, and materials of the source design. Water kerma approximation was utilized and results were calculated using the mass energy absorption coefficients from Hubbell and Seltzer (version 1.03).[176] 192Ir source photon spectrum from Glasgow and Dillman[162] was considered. The photon cutoff was 2 keV. The source was centrally positioned in a 30 cm diameter spherical water phantom as well as in an unbounded water phantom. The phantom spheres were divided into discrete concentric spherical shells of 0.05 cm intervals up to 0.5 cm, 0.1 cm intervals between 0.5 cm and 3 cm, and 0.5 cm intervals at larger r values. All shells were split in

1° intervals with respect to . Air-kerma strength was derived using both simulations in free space and dry air. A point source geometry factor was used to derive radial dose and anisotropy functions.

They reported = (1.121 ± 0.006) cGy h–1 U–1. The anisotropy function was tabulated up to 5 cm.

Taylor and Rogers,[139] see Appendix A.1.1, obtained = (1.119 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1. Consensus Data

The average of two MC study values is recommended as CON .[55,139] CON = (1.120 ± 0.006)

cGy h–1 U–1 (see Table XXVI). The data of Karaiskos et al., corrected to unbounded phantom and also corrected by the linear geometry function, with L = 0.12 cm, were selected for CONgL(r) (Table XXVII) because of fluctuations in the Taylor and Rogers[139] data at 1 cm, which clearly affects their

normalization. For CONF(r, ), the data by Taylor and Rogers are taken because of the higher resolution. For r = 0.25 cm, the values of Karaiskos et al.[55] are proposed as consensus data because it presents a wider angular range. See Table XXXII. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXXIII).

90 HEBD report

Table XXXII. F(r, ) for the Nucletron mPDR-v1 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

0 0.854 0.854 0.875 0.886 0.883 0.890 0.894 0.899 0.916 0.927

1 0.855 0.855 0.876 0.879 0.883 0.891 0.900 0.902 0.916 0.928

2 0.856 0.856 0.875 0.880 0.885 0.893 0.899 0.903 0.916 0.928

3 0.857 0.857 0.874 0.881 0.888 0.897 0.903 0.906 0.920 0.931

5 0.859 0.859 0.879 0.886 0.893 0.899 0.907 0.909 0.924 0.933

7 0.861 0.861 0.885 0.895 0.898 0.906 0.911 0.912 0.927 0.938

10 0.867 0.867 0.891 0.898 0.904 0.909 0.919 0.919 0.932 0.941

12 0.872 0.872 0.897 0.904 0.908 0.915 0.921 0.922 0.934 0.944

15 0.875 0.875 0.904 0.914 0.914 0.919 0.924 0.924 0.936 0.944

20 0.887 0.887 0.916 0.924 0.926 0.931 0.937 0.937 0.945 0.955

25 0.899 0.899 0.927 0.937 0.936 0.940 0.945 0.943 0.953 0.959

30 0.911 0.911 0.940 0.948 0.948 0.951 0.952 0.950 0.960 0.964

35 0.928 0.928 0.950 0.957 0.959 0.961 0.963 0.961 0.969 0.974

40 0.941 0.941 0.962 0.970 0.967 0.970 0.972 0.969 0.975 0.975

45 0.952 0.952 0.971 0.977 0.976 0.976 0.978 0.976 0.983 0.985

50 0.964 0.964 0.979 0.986 0.984 0.985 0.986 0.983 0.986 0.990

55 0.982 0.982 0.986 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.990 0.985 0.991 0.991

60 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.995 0.992 0.992 0.994 0.992 0.993 0.995

65 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.999 0.995 0.996 0.999

70 0.994 0.994 0.996 1.000 0.998 0.998 1.000 0.997 0.999 1.001

75 0.996 0.996 0.997 1.002 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.995 0.998 1.000

80 0.998 0.998 0.999 1.008 1.001 1.001 1.003 0.999 1.002 1.000

85 0.999 0.999 0.998 1.006 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.998 1.001 1.004

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

95 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.005 1.001 1.002 1.002 0.996 1.003 1.004

100 0.999 0.999 0.998 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.001 0.998 0.999 1.002

105 0.997 0.997 0.999 1.004 1.001 1.001 1.001 0.999 1.002 1.005

110 0.995 0.995 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.990 0.997 0.997

115 0.993 0.993 0.995 0.998 0.996 0.996 0.998 0.992 0.994 0.997

120 0.989 0.989 0.991 0.999 0.992 0.991 0.994 0.990 0.993 0.996

125 0.984 0.984 0.987 0.993 0.988 0.991 0.993 0.989 0.991 0.992

130 1.000 1.000 0.980 0.986 0.984 0.984 0.987 0.985 0.985 0.988

135 0.969 0.969 0.973 0.981 0.976 0.978 0.980 0.975 0.982 0.982

140 0.957 0.957 0.963 0.973 0.968 0.969 0.971 0.967 0.972 0.978

145 0.946 0.946 0.951 0.960 0.956 0.957 0.962 0.958 0.965 0.970

150 0.934 0.934 0.939 0.948 0.943 0.947 0.951 0.949 0.955 0.960

155 0.918 0.918 0.920 0.923 0.924 0.928 0.933 0.930 0.939 0.945

160 0.898 0.898 0.898 0.899 0.902 0.907 0.911 0.911 0.924 0.935

165 0.858 0.858 0.859 0.862 0.869 0.878 0.885 0.887 0.903 0.915

168 0.830 0.830 0.832 0.835 0.841 0.852 0.861 0.863 0.884 0.897

170 0.803 0.803 0.805 0.808 0.815 0.828 0.839 0.847 0.869 0.885


Table XXXII (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 7.5 10

173 0.733 0.733 0.737 0.745 0.762 0.780 0.795 0.807 0.835 0.859

175 0.685 0.685 0.692 0.705 0.730 0.749 0.770 0.783 0.818 0.843

177 0.688 0.688 0.693 0.702 0.721 0.742 0.762 0.776 0.810 0.838

178 0.686 0.686 0.690 0.700 0.718 0.739 0.758 0.772 0.809 0.835

179 0.678 0.678 0.684 0.695 0.717 0.736 0.757 0.769 0.807 0.834

180 0.693 0.693 0.696 0.703 0.716 0.738 0.759 0.767 0.809 0.832

Table XXXIII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Nucletron mPDR-v1 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0206 0.0205 0.0201 0.01956 0.01810 0.01626 0.01430 0.01236 0.01069

6 0.0282 0.0283 0.0283 0.0282 0.0280 0.0272 0.0262 0.0235 0.0206 0.01763 0.01491 0.01252

5 0.0406 0.0408 0.0407 0.0405 0.0400 0.0385 0.0365 0.0316 0.0264 0.0218 0.01785 0.01458

4 0.0631 0.0635 0.0633 0.0626 0.0612 0.0580 0.0534 0.0435 0.0344 0.0269 0.0211 0.01683

3 0.1119 0.1123 0.1112 0.1086 0.1050 0.0949 0.0834 0.0613 0.0445 0.0328 0.0246 0.01900

2 0.249 0.250 0.242 0.229 0.212 0.1739 0.1379 0.0860 0.0562 0.0387 0.0279 0.0208

1.5 0.443 0.438 0.415 0.376 0.331 0.245 0.1781 0.1001 0.0618 0.0412 0.0292 0.0216

1 0.997 0.964 0.846 0.692 0.549 0.343 0.224 0.1129 0.0663 0.0433 0.0303 0.0222

0.5 3.98 3.37 2.19 1.365 0.893 0.449 0.265 0.1224 0.0695 0.0446 0.0309 0.0225

0 1.45×109 17.73 4.46 1.988 1.120 0.499 0.282 0.1257 0.0705 0.0452 0.0312 0.0226

–0.5 3.16 3.35 2.19 1.371 0.896 0.449 0.265 0.1224 0.0695 0.0446 0.0309 0.0225

–1 0.791 0.904 0.837 0.693 0.550 0.343 0.224 0.1129 0.0664 0.0433 0.0303 0.0222

–1.5 0.355 0.390 0.401 0.372 0.330 0.245 0.1783 0.1000 0.0615 0.0412 0.0293 0.0216

–2 0.202 0.212 0.228 0.224 0.210 0.1735 0.1382 0.0862 0.0561 0.0385 0.0278 0.0209

–3 0.0928 0.0935 0.1003 0.1030 0.1017 0.0940 0.0832 0.0613 0.0446 0.0327 0.0246 0.01896

–4 0.0535 0.0537 0.0554 0.0576 0.0583 0.0565 0.0529 0.0434 0.0343 0.0269 0.0211 0.01682

–5 0.0347 0.0349 0.0354 0.0365 0.0373 0.0371 0.0357 0.0315 0.0264 0.0217 0.01783 0.01458

–6 0.0244 0.0245 0.0247 0.0252 0.0257 0.0260 0.0255 0.0233 0.0205 0.01759 0.01489 0.01249

–7 0.01811 0.01812 0.01818 0.01838 0.01870 0.01906 0.01892 0.01779 0.01618 0.01424 0.01237 0.01066

A.2.4. Ir2.A85-1 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

The model Ir2.A85-1 source (E&Z BEBIG) is composed of two iridium (density 22.42 g/cm3) cylindrical pellets 0.5 mm in length and 0.5 mm in diameter. The distal pellet represents the active 192Ir source. The external capsule has the same inner and outer diameter (0.9 mm) as the HDR source type Ir2.A85-2 and is also made of 316L stainless steel. See Figure 15.

92 HEBD report

Figure 15. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG Ir2.A85-1 source.[174]

Publications

The only study of this source model was done by Granero et al.[174] using the GEANT4 code and following the prerequisites in Li et al.[17] This source is very close in materials/geometry to the already discussed model GammaMed PDR Plus source. The most significant difference is the

distance from active edge to tip (1.8 mm vs. 1.2 mm). values for both source models are in very good agreement. In the simulations, 5 mm of guiding cable was considered. They provided dosimetric data in the TG-43 U1 formalism and as an away-along table. This study follows the methodology outlined in Appendix A.1.7 for the GI192M11 source model. Consensus Data

The data from Granero et al.[174] are taken as the consensus dataset. They reported CON =

(1.124 ± 0.011) cGy h–1 U–1 (see Table XXVI), with CONgL(r) and CONF(r, ) reproduced in Tables XXVII and XXXIV. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXXV).


Table XXXIV. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG PDR-Ir2.A85-1 model. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.929 0.929 0.925 0.921 0.923 0.925 0.927 0.926 0.931 0.937 0.939 0.942 0.941 0.947

1 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.926 0.928 0.930 0.933 0.935 0.939 0.944 0.948 0.950 0.950 0.956

2 0.931 0.931 0.932 0.933 0.934 0.937 0.940 0.945 0.948 0.952 0.956 0.959 0.960 0.965

3 0.935 0.935 0.936 0.937 0.938 0.940 0.943 0.947 0.951 0.954 0.958 0.961 0.962 0.967

4 0.935 0.935 0.937 0.939 0.941 0.943 0.946 0.950 0.954 0.957 0.960 0.963 0.965 0.969

5 0.937 0.937 0.939 0.941 0.942 0.944 0.947 0.951 0.955 0.959 0.962 0.965 0.966 0.970

6 0.939 0.939 0.940 0.941 0.942 0.944 0.947 0.952 0.955 0.960 0.962 0.965 0.966 0.970

8 0.938 0.938 0.940 0.942 0.943 0.946 0.948 0.952 0.956 0.959 0.962 0.964 0.966 0.969

10 0.941 0.941 0.943 0.945 0.947 0.949 0.952 0.956 0.958 0.961 0.964 0.966 0.968 0.972

15 0.946 0.946 0.948 0.950 0.952 0.955 0.957 0.960 0.963 0.965 0.967 0.969 0.971 0.974

20 0.954 0.954 0.956 0.958 0.959 0.961 0.963 0.966 0.969 0.970 0.972 0.975 0.976 0.978

25 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.970 0.971 0.973 0.975 0.977 0.979 0.980 0.980 0.983

30 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.978 0.980 0.982 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.987

40 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994

50 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999

60 0.998 0.998 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.002 1.002

70 1.001 1.001 1.003 1.003 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.005 1.004 1.004 1.004 1.003

80 1.001 1.001 1.002 1.002 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.003 1.002 1.002 1.002

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997

110 0.993 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.992 0.992

120 0.983 0.983 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986

130 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.972 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.973 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.975 0.976

140 0.944 0.944 0.946 0.948 0.948 0.949 0.950 0.952 0.953 0.955 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.960

150 0.905 0.905 0.907 0.909 0.911 0.913 0.915 0.919 0.922 0.926 0.928 0.931 0.933 0.937

155 0.878 0.878 0.880 0.882 0.884 0.888 0.891 0.897 0.903 0.907 0.911 0.914 0.917 0.922

160 0.842 0.842 0.846 0.850 0.854 0.859 0.864 0.872 0.879 0.885 0.890 0.895 0.900 0.907

165 0.811 0.811 0.815 0.819 0.822 0.829 0.835 0.846 0.855 0.863 0.870 0.876 0.881 0.890

170 0.780 0.780 0.784 0.789 0.793 0.802 0.810 0.823 0.833 0.842 0.851 0.858 0.865 0.876

172 0.770 0.770 0.774 0.778 0.782 0.790 0.798 0.811 0.823 0.833 0.842 0.850 0.857 0.869

174 0.748 0.748 0.753 0.758 0.763 0.773 0.783 0.799 0.812 0.822 0.833 0.842 0.849 0.862

175 0.738 0.738 0.743 0.749 0.754 0.765 0.775 0.791 0.805 0.816 0.826 0.836 0.845 0.858

176 0.730 0.730 0.735 0.741 0.746 0.757 0.767 0.784 0.799 0.811 0.821 0.832 0.840 0.856

177 0.722 0.722 0.728 0.734 0.740 0.752 0.762 0.780 0.795 0.806 0.817 0.826 0.836 0.849

178 0.721 0.721 0.726 0.732 0.737 0.748 0.758 0.775 0.789 0.801 0.813 0.822 0.831 0.844

179 0.714 0.714 0.718 0.723 0.727 0.736 0.743 0.758 0.774 0.788 0.800 0.810 0.820 0.837

180 0.707 0.707 0.711 0.715 0.719 0.727 0.732 0.747 0.763 0.777 0.789 0.799 0.812 0.829

94 HEBD report

Table XXXV. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG PDR Ir2.A85-1 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.0213 0.0217 0.0217 0.0216 0.0214 0.0209 0.0203 0.01858 0.01659 0.01452 0.01257 0.01080

6 0.0292 0.0297 0.0297 0.0295 0.0292 0.0283 0.0271 0.0243 0.0210 0.01790 0.01505 0.01262

5 0.0423 0.0430 0.0429 0.0424 0.0417 0.0400 0.0378 0.0325 0.0270 0.0221 0.01799 0.01467

4 0.0659 0.0672 0.0666 0.0655 0.0641 0.0601 0.0553 0.0447 0.0349 0.0272 0.0213 0.01688

3 0.1166 0.1189 0.1170 0.1137 0.1093 0.0983 0.0858 0.0625 0.0451 0.0331 0.0248 0.01905

2 0.262 0.264 0.255 0.239 0.220 0.1788 0.1408 0.0872 0.0567 0.0390 0.0280 0.0209

1.5 0.464 0.463 0.433 0.390 0.341 0.250 0.1809 0.1010 0.0622 0.0415 0.0293 0.0217

1 1.038 1.007 0.874 0.710 0.560 0.348 0.227 0.1137 0.0668 0.0435 0.0304 0.0222

0.5 4.16 3.48 2.23 1.383 0.902 0.453 0.267 0.1229 0.0698 0.0448 0.0310 0.0225

0 3.75×109 17.87 4.48 1.996 1.124 0.501 0.283 0.1259 0.0708 0.0451 0.0311 0.0226

–0.5 3.20 3.19 2.16 1.356 0.889 0.448 0.265 0.1223 0.0696 0.0446 0.0309 0.0225

–1 0.809 0.865 0.804 0.675 0.541 0.341 0.224 0.1126 0.0663 0.0433 0.0302 0.0221

–1.5 0.364 0.390 0.384 0.360 0.322 0.242 0.1769 0.0995 0.0615 0.0411 0.0291 0.0215

–2 0.207 0.220 0.221 0.215 0.204 0.1703 0.1363 0.0855 0.0559 0.0385 0.0278 0.0208

–3 0.0941 0.0987 0.1005 0.0998 0.0980 0.0912 0.0812 0.0605 0.0441 0.0325 0.0244 0.01880

–4 0.0540 0.0562 0.0570 0.0572 0.0567 0.0547 0.0515 0.0427 0.0339 0.0266 0.0209 0.01661

–5 0.0351 0.0363 0.0367 0.0369 0.0368 0.0361 0.0347 0.0307 0.0259 0.0214 0.01756 0.01437

–6 0.0246 0.0253 0.0255 0.0257 0.0257 0.0254 0.0247 0.0227 0.0200 0.01724 0.01460 0.01232

–7 0.01809 0.01859 0.01875 0.01886 0.01887 0.01873 0.01838 0.01727 0.01571 0.01390 0.01213 0.01049

A.3. Low Dose Rate 192Ir sources A.3.1. Steel clad 192Ir seed (Best Industries) Source Description

The source, designated model 81-01 (Best Industries, Springfield, VA), is cylindrical in shape with an overall length of 3.0 mm and an external diameter of 0.5 mm (Figure 16). The active core element is 70% mass Pt and 30% mass Ir with a 3.0 mm length and 0.1 mm diameter. This core is encapsulated in a 0.2 mm thick 304 stainless steel shell for a total diameter of 0.5 mm. According to product literature, sources are available in activities of up to 15 mCi. Publications

The dosimetry of the Best Medical 192Ir seed has been studied extensively using MC simulation[27,46,72,86,177–182] and experimental measurement.[1,163,180–182]


Figure 16. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Best Medical model 81-01 192Ir seed.[46] Drawing is not to scale.

Anctil et al.[163] made TLD measurements in a polystyrene phantom of size (30 30 16.5)

cm3 using 1.0 mm 6 mm LiF rods calibrated in a 6 MV linac beam and having a measurement

precision of 3%. Approximately 7 cGy was delivered to each TLD position in the phantom.

Measurements were repeated 5 except at the reference position, where they were repeated 24 using bilateral TLD placement to minimize source positioning uncertainties in the transverse direction. A distance-dependent photon energy response correction was made using factors taken from Meigooni et al.[164] TG-43 parameters were obtained using a line source approximation for the

geometry function, with L = 3 mm. was (1.110 ± 0.032) cGy h–1 U–1. The radial dose function was obtained over the distance range 1.0 cm to 10.0 cm in 1.0 cm steps, and the anisotropy function was

obtained on a polar grid sampling of the same radial points and an angular range from 0° to 170° in

10° steps. Ballester et al.[72] used the GEANT4 code[183] to calculate dosimetry parameters for the Best Medical 192Ir seed. The air-kerma strength was calculated with a statistical uncertainty of <0.5% in a

(4 4 4) m3 dry air volume using the 192Ir emission spectrum from the NuDat database (NNDC), excluding emissions <10 keV. Kerma rate was scored in 1 cm3 detectors located on the transverse axis at distances r = 5 cm to 150 cm from the source, the values fitted to the expression

Kair r( )r2

= SK + br. Collisional kerma, approximating absorbed dose, was scored within an 80 cm

diameter water sphere in a set of concentric spherical shell segments 0.5 mm thick and 1° wide in polar angle. Statistical uncertainty was <0.5% except along the source longitudinal axis, where it was <2%. TG-43 parameters were derived using a line source approximation for the geometry function

with L = 3 mm. was (1.112 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1. gL(r) was calculated for variable-length steps

within the range 0.25 cm to 20.0 cm. F(r, ) was obtained on a polar grid spanning the same radial

interval and an angular interval from 0° to 90° in variable-angle steps.

96 HEBD report Wang et al.[134] used a modified version of the EGS4 MC code[134,184] to calculate dosimetry parameters for the Best Medical 192Ir seed over a limited radial range 0.05 cm < r < 1.0 cm, of interest in intravascular brachytherapy. The 192Ir emission spectrum used was that of Glasgow and Dillman.[162] Both photons and electrons were transported, and dose was scored in a water phantom with dimensions large compared to the most energetic secondary particles, using an analog estimator and a cylindrical coordinate system. The statistical accuracy of dose estimates was <0.5% for all radial positions r > 0.4 mm and all axial positions z < 10 mm. Doses were normalized to the source strength, and TG-43 parameters were derived using a line source approximation for the geometry

function with L = 3 mm. was (1.109 ± 0.004) cGy h–1 U–1. The radial dose function calculated within an extended range 5 mm < r < 30 mm was found to be in excellent agreement with the published data of Williamson[46] and Wang and Sloboda.[184] Consensus Data

Previously recommended dosimetry parameters for this source provided in the original TG-43 report[1] were derived from a combination of measured and MC data. Since the publication of TG-43, additional high-quality data have become available in the form of TLD measurements[163] and MC calculations.[72,86,177–179,185] The quality of the MC data as evaluated by guidelines described in Li et al.[17] and TG-43U1 report[2] is generally superior to that of the experimental data, with few

exceptions. Hence for , the average of five MC values,[46,72,86,179,185] CON = (1.110 ± 0.015)

cGy h–1 U–1 (see Table XXXVI) is recommended.

Table XXXVI. Dose rate constant for different LDR 192Ir sources.

Seed Name (Manufacturer) CON

[cGy h–1 U–1] Statistical uncertainty

(k = 1)

CON /GL(r, ) [cGy cm2 h–1 U–1]

Model 81-01 (Best Industries) 1.110 1.3% 1.118

Wire 0.5 cm (E&Z BEBIG) 1.096 0.2% 1.118

Wire 1.0 cm (E&Z BEBIG) 1.036 0.2% 1.118

To calculate GL(r, ), L = 0.3 cm was used. For CONgL(r), a combination of data from two

studies is recommended: for 0.05 cm r 0.5 cm, the data of Wang and Li[185] are recommended because electron transport was explicitly taken into account and dose was scored directly; for

0.75 cm r 10 cm, the data of Ballester et al.[72] are recommended because they were obtained with recommended unbounded scatter conditions. These data are reproduced in Table XXXVII. For

CONF(r, ), the Ballester et al.[72] data reproduced in Table XXXVIII are recommended, as they were obtained with denser angular sampling near the source long axis. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XXXIX).


Table XXXVII. Radial dose function values for LDR 192Ir sources. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

gL(r)

r [cm]

81-01 seed Best Industries

L = 0.3 cm

Wire 0.5 cm E&Z BEBIG L = 0.5 cm

Wire 1.0 cm E&Z BEBIG

L = 1 cm

0 0.979 0.983 0.973 0.05 0.979 0.1 0.986 0.15 0.989 0.2 0.991 0.25 0.992 0.983 0.973 0.5 0.996 0.994 0.990 0.75 0.997 0.998 0.997

1 1 1 1 1.5 1.004 1.004 1.004 2 1.008 1.006 1.007 3 1.010 1.008 1.009 4 1.009 1.007 1.009 5 1.005 1.003 1.004 6 0.999 0.996 0.997 8 0.977 0.973 0.975 10 0.945 0.941 0.942

Table XXXVIII. F(r, ) for the Best Industries model 81-01192Ir seed. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.745 0.745 0.649 0.643 0.644 0.651 0.663 0.692 0.713 0.744 0.766 0.783 0.793 0.822

1 0.755 0.755 0.671 0.665 0.666 0.674 0.686 0.711 0.735 0.759 0.782 0.793 0.808 0.832

2 0.787 0.787 0.716 0.712 0.713 0.723 0.733 0.755 0.775 0.794 0.812 0.823 0.837 0.855

3 0.828 0.828 0.764 0.760 0.760 0.768 0.777 0.795 0.810 0.827 0.839 0.850 0.861 0.877

4 0.859 0.859 0.800 0.795 0.794 0.800 0.806 0.821 0.836 0.848 0.859 0.866 0.876 0.893

5 0.880 0.880 0.825 0.820 0.820 0.825 0.829 0.843 0.856 0.865 0.875 0.882 0.890 0.905

6 0.896 0.896 0.845 0.839 0.838 0.841 0.847 0.859 0.870 0.879 0.888 0.893 0.902 0.912

8 0.913 0.913 0.870 0.867 0.868 0.871 0.875 0.884 0.893 0.900 0.904 0.910 0.917 0.924

10 0.930 0.930 0.893 0.891 0.891 0.893 0.897 0.904 0.910 0.918 0.921 0.925 0.930 0.936

15 0.956 0.956 0.932 0.930 0.928 0.927 0.929 0.934 0.939 0.945 0.946 0.949 0.952 0.957

20 0.970 0.970 0.953 0.953 0.951 0.951 0.951 0.954 0.957 0.960 0.963 0.963 0.966 0.969

25 0.979 0.979 0.967 0.965 0.964 0.964 0.965 0.966 0.970 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.974 0.977

30 0.984 0.984 0.977 0.976 0.975 0.974 0.974 0.976 0.977 0.979 0.978 0.979 0.981 0.983

40 0.990 0.990 0.986 0.987 0.985 0.985 0.984 0.986 0.987 0.988 0.987 0.989 0.988 0.990

50 0.994 0.994 0.992 0.993 0.993 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.992 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995

60 0.998 0.998 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.996 0.995 0.996 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998

70 0.999 0.999 0.997 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.996 0.998 0.998 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.999

80 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 1.001 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

98 HEBD report

Table XXXIX. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the Best Industries model 81-01192Ir seed. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01770 0.01861 0.01951 0.0200 0.0202 0.0202 0.01983 0.01838 0.01647 0.01441 0.01247 0.01072

6 0.0238 0.0255 0.0269 0.0274 0.0277 0.0275 0.0267 0.0241 0.0209 0.01775 0.01493 0.01253

5 0.0335 0.0369 0.0390 0.0398 0.0400 0.0392 0.0373 0.0322 0.0268 0.0219 0.01785 0.01456

4 0.0504 0.0580 0.0614 0.0624 0.0621 0.0593 0.0549 0.0443 0.0347 0.0270 0.0212 0.01676

3 0.0871 0.1047 0.1100 0.1099 0.1073 0.0975 0.0852 0.0620 0.0448 0.0328 0.0246 0.01890

2 0.1879 0.241 0.246 0.237 0.219 0.1776 0.1396 0.0864 0.0562 0.0386 0.0278 0.0208

1.5 0.328 0.435 0.427 0.389 0.340 0.248 0.1792 0.1001 0.0617 0.0412 0.0291 0.0216

1 0.737 0.989 0.878 0.709 0.557 0.344 0.225 0.1127 0.0663 0.0432 0.0302 0.0221

0.5 3.18 3.65 2.24 1.371 0.892 0.448 0.264 0.1218 0.0694 0.0445 0.0308 0.0225

0 4.89×108 15.99 4.33 1.957 1.110 0.497 0.281 0.1254 0.0705 0.0449 0.0310 0.0226

A.3.2. LDR 192Ir wires (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

Platinum encapsulated 192Ir wires are used as interstitial sources in LDR brachytherapy in manual and remote afterloading systems in Europe. There are several different models of 192Ir wires that are commercially available.[186] 192Ir wires of 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm in total diameter, encapsulated with 0.1 mm Pt are the most clinically used source models (Figure 17). Currently there is only one manufacturer: E&Z BEBIG. The total length of the source wires as supplied by the manufacturer is 14 cm. The wire is flexible and is designed to be cut to the desired length in clinical practice, so one can obtain wires of any length and curvature. TPSs calculate dose distributions around the wires with different algorithms using stored data for elemental wires: punctual source, 0.5 cm long wire, 1 cm long, etc.

Figure 17. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG LDR 192Ir wire.[82] Plot is not to scale.


Publications

Elongated source dosimetry, most appropriate for 192Ir wires, will be covered by TG-143. The current report focused only on data for the fundamental lengths used by TPS. So, consensus datasets only for 0.5 cm and 1 cm wire lengths will be produced. For the 0.5 cm and 1 cm wires there is only one publication[82] using GEANT4, scoring kerma in an unbounded phantom. However, several MC and EXP studies have been done for the 5 cm Ir wire: Karaiskos et al.,[88] van der Laarse et al.,[82] Ballester et al.,[130] and Pérez-Calatayud et al.[187] The studies of Ballester et al., and Perez-Calatayud et al., were not considered because a bug was discovered in GEANT3 that affected the dose calculated along the source. There are two EXP studies: Bahar-Gogani et al.[188] that used a liquid ionization chamber and Gillin et al.[189] that used TLD. In the comparison, the MC study of Karaiskos

et al.[88] data has been corrected from the particle streaming function to the geometry function GL(r, ) and unbounded scattering conditions.[31] A comparison has been done between the previously commented MC and EXP studies using away-along dose rate tables corrected by r2, showing very good agreement within uncertainties except at points where the different phantoms used introduced dose differences. Consensus Data

The previous comparison done for the same source but with L = 5 cm supports the GEANT4 code on the van der Laarse et al.[82] study as the only study for the 0.5 cm and 1 cm wire lengths. So,

CON (see Table XXXVI), CONgL(r) (see Table XXXVII), and CONF(r, ) (Tables XL and XLIII) consensus for the 0.5 cm and 1 cm length wires are taken from van der Laarse et al.[82] study. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is presented

(cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Tables XLI and XLII).

Table XL. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG L = 0.5 cm wire length. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.660 0.660 0.599 0.538 0.519 0.514 0.522 0.547 0.578 0.605 0.632 0.657 0.682 0.715

1 0.662 0.662 0.604 0.546 0.528 0.523 0.532 0.558 0.588 0.616 0.644 0.666 0.689 0.723

2 0.662 0.662 0.609 0.556 0.541 0.539 0.550 0.578 0.606 0.634 0.661 0.681 0.701 0.735

3 0.663 0.663 0.617 0.571 0.560 0.561 0.573 0.602 0.629 0.656 0.680 0.700 0.718 0.751

4 0.680 0.680 0.640 0.600 0.592 0.596 0.608 0.635 0.661 0.686 0.707 0.725 0.742 0.773

5 0.708 0.708 0.672 0.636 0.630 0.634 0.645 0.669 0.693 0.714 0.734 0.750 0.766 0.793

6 0.734 0.734 0.703 0.672 0.666 0.669 0.679 0.701 0.722 0.741 0.758 0.773 0.787 0.809

8 0.788 0.788 0.759 0.730 0.725 0.728 0.736 0.753 0.769 0.784 0.797 0.809 0.819 0.838

10 0.825 0.825 0.801 0.777 0.772 0.773 0.779 0.793 0.806 0.817 0.828 0.838 0.846 0.861

15 0.889 0.889 0.871 0.853 0.848 0.847 0.851 0.859 0.867 0.873 0.879 0.885 0.891 0.899

20 0.926 0.926 0.911 0.896 0.893 0.892 0.894 0.899 0.904 0.908 0.912 0.916 0.920 0.925

25 0.947 0.947 0.936 0.925 0.923 0.921 0.922 0.925 0.928 0.931 0.934 0.936 0.938 0.942

100 HEBD report

Table XL (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

30 0.961 0.961 0.953 0.945 0.942 0.940 0.941 0.943 0.945 0.947 0.949 0.950 0.952 0.955

40 0.977 0.977 0.973 0.969 0.967 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.971 0.971 0.973 0.973

50 0.989 0.989 0.986 0.983 0.983 0.981 0.982 0.982 0.982 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.984

60 0.996 0.996 0.993 0.991 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.991 0.991 0.991 0.992 0.991 0.992 0.992

70 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.997

80 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table XLI. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG L = 0.5 cm wire length. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01481 0.01535 0.01631 0.01727 0.01791 0.01847 0.01852 0.01757 0.01592 0.01404 0.01222 0.01052

6 0.01959 0.0207 0.0224 0.0238 0.0247 0.0253 0.0251 0.0231 0.0203 0.01740 0.01468 0.01234

5 0.0272 0.0293 0.0327 0.0349 0.0360 0.0365 0.0355 0.0312 0.0262 0.0215 0.01760 0.01438

4 0.0409 0.0456 0.0521 0.0556 0.0569 0.0561 0.0527 0.0433 0.0341 0.0266 0.0209 0.01659

3 0.0690 0.0828 0.0961 0.1005 0.1006 0.0937 0.0829 0.0611 0.0442 0.0325 0.0244 0.01876

2.5 0.0973 0.1227 0.1407 0.1450 0.1420 0.1260 0.1064 0.0726 0.0499 0.0355 0.0261 0.01977

2 0.1492 0.200 0.225 0.224 0.211 0.1738 0.1377 0.0857 0.0558 0.0384 0.0277 0.0207

1.5 0.264 0.380 0.403 0.377 0.332 0.245 0.1777 0.0994 0.0614 0.0410 0.0290 0.0214

1 0.619 0.927 0.863 0.702 0.552 0.342 0.223 0.1122 0.0660 0.0430 0.0300 0.0220

0.75 1.201 1.722 1.370 0.987 0.710 0.396 0.245 0.1175 0.0678 0.0438 0.0304 0.0222

0.5 3.55 3.88 2.26 1.365 0.885 0.445 0.263 0.1215 0.0692 0.0444 0.0307 0.0224

0.25 5.22×105 9.60 3.47 1.744 1.035 0.481 0.275 0.1241 0.0700 0.0447 0.0309 0.0225

0 2.61×108 13.81 4.12 1.915 1.096 0.495 0.280 0.1250 0.0703 0.0448 0.0309 0.0225


Table XLII. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG L = 1 cm wire length. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.681 0.681 0.603 0.525 0.447 0.411 0.411 0.435 0.474 0.512 0.544 0.571 0.605 0.647

1 0.684 0.684 0.607 0.530 0.453 0.421 0.423 0.451 0.489 0.525 0.558 0.585 0.616 0.658

2 0.691 0.691 0.621 0.551 0.481 0.454 0.458 0.489 0.524 0.558 0.589 0.617 0.642 0.683

3 0.725 0.725 0.660 0.595 0.530 0.506 0.512 0.540 0.571 0.602 0.629 0.656 0.678 0.714

4 0.772 0.772 0.710 0.648 0.586 0.562 0.568 0.593 0.621 0.647 0.671 0.693 0.713 0.745

5 0.811 0.811 0.753 0.695 0.637 0.614 0.616 0.638 0.663 0.685 0.706 0.724 0.741 0.771

6 0.842 0.842 0.788 0.734 0.680 0.657 0.659 0.678 0.699 0.718 0.737 0.753 0.766 0.793

8 0.887 0.887 0.840 0.793 0.746 0.725 0.725 0.740 0.754 0.770 0.783 0.796 0.806 0.826

10 0.911 0.911 0.872 0.833 0.794 0.775 0.775 0.785 0.797 0.809 0.820 0.829 0.838 0.852

15 0.946 0.946 0.920 0.894 0.868 0.853 0.851 0.856 0.862 0.869 0.875 0.881 0.886 0.895

20 0.963 0.963 0.945 0.927 0.909 0.897 0.895 0.897 0.900 0.905 0.909 0.913 0.915 0.921

25 0.973 0.973 0.960 0.947 0.934 0.925 0.924 0.925 0.927 0.930 0.933 0.934 0.937 0.940

30 0.992 0.992 0.976 0.960 0.951 0.945 0.943 0.943 0.944 0.947 0.947 0.949 0.951 0.954

40 0.993 0.993 0.985 0.977 0.972 0.969 0.968 0.968 0.968 0.970 0.970 0.971 0.971 0.972

50 0.995 0.995 0.991 0.987 0.984 0.984 0.983 0.982 0.982 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.985

60 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.993 0.992 0.992 0.991 0.992 0.991 0.992 0.991 0.991 0.991 0.992

70 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996

80 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table XLIII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG L = 1 cm wire length. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01292 0.01398 0.01566 0.01690 0.01769 0.01838 0.01849 0.01757 0.01594 0.01405 0.01221 0.01053 6 0.01695 0.01880 0.0216 0.0234 0.0246 0.0253 0.0251 0.0232 0.0203 0.01740 0.01468 0.01235 5 0.0232 0.0269 0.0318 0.0346 0.0359 0.0366 0.0356 0.0313 0.0263 0.0216 0.01762 0.01439 4 0.0339 0.0428 0.0514 0.0556 0.0571 0.0564 0.0530 0.0434 0.0342 0.0267 0.0209 0.01658 3 0.0560 0.0802 0.0967 0.1018 0.1019 0.0948 0.0835 0.0613 0.0443 0.0325 0.0244 0.01875

2.5 0.0794 0.1219 0.1437 0.1484 0.1449 0.1277 0.1073 0.0728 0.0500 0.0355 0.0261 0.01976 2 0.1232 0.205 0.234 0.232 0.217 0.1765 0.1387 0.0858 0.0558 0.0383 0.0276 0.0207

1.5 0.230 0.412 0.433 0.397 0.344 0.248 0.1784 0.0993 0.0613 0.0409 0.0290 0.0214 1 0.666 1.138 0.972 0.746 0.568 0.343 0.223 0.1118 0.0658 0.0429 0.0300 0.0220

0.75 1.871 2.39 1.560 1.033 0.719 0.394 0.243 0.1169 0.0676 0.0437 0.0304 0.0222 0.5 1.20×105 5.65 2.42 1.365 0.873 0.439 0.260 0.1209 0.0689 0.0443 0.0306 0.0223

0.25 5.33×105 8.83 3.19 1.640 0.991 0.470 0.272 0.1233 0.0698 0.0446 0.0308 0.0224 0 1.33×108 9.63 3.47 1.746 1.036 0.481 0.275 0.1241 0.0701 0.0447 0.0309 0.0225

102 HEBD report A.4. 137Cs sources A.4.1. CSM3 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

This 137Cs source manufactured by E&Z BEBIG is used in manual and remote-controlled LDR afterloading systems. The source (Figure 18) is composed of three cylindrical pollucite pellets, 0.08 cm in diameter and 0.36 cm long contained in a 2.03 cm long outer stainless-steel cylinder with an outer diameter of 0.265 cm. The 137Cs radionuclide is uniformly distributed in the active pellets. The source is asymmetric due to the presence of the eyelet and the upper wedge-shaped end.

Figure 18. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG model CSM3 source.[141]

Publications

The CSM3 source has been studied by Williamson[141] and Liu et al.[190] using analytical methods, and by Pérez-Calatayud et al.[191] using MC. Only calculated data have been published for this source, although in Pérez-Calatayud et al.[191] the MC results were validated using TLD dosimetry for a very similar source model, CSM2 (the CSM2 has the same design as the CSM3 but with the central pollucite pellet made inactive). The CSM3 source belongs in the category of conventionally encapsulated 137Cs and 192Ir, similar in design to existing ones where a single dosimetric study is sufficient as recommended.[17] Because this is a segmented active volume source, to obtain the parameters and functions of the TG-43 formalism, an effective active length Leff of

1.8 cm was used (Leff = N S, where N is the number of active pellets and S the separation between the centers of two consecutive active pellets) as proposed by Williamson[141] and recommended in the TG-43U1 report.[2] The origin for dose calculations in Williamson[141] and Liu et al.[190] is the geometrical center of the three active source pellets, while in Perez-Calatayud et al.[191] it is the center of the capsule. So, the origins are 0.15 mm apart. For the purposes of this report, the data in Pérez-


Calatayud et al.[191] were interpolated to effectively shift the origin to the geometrical center of the three active pellets. Williamson[141] studied the dosimetric proprieties of this source. The source was considered symmetrical, neglecting the asymmetry between the two source ends. MC was used to fit the parameters for a Sievert-based algorithm that was later used to give the away-along dose rate tables for this source. No TG-43 formatted data were presented. Williamson[141] used a tissue attenuation and scatter factor calculated by himself.[192] Liu et al.[190] produced a dosimetric report with the TG-43 formalism for these sources using the same Sievert-derived algorithm as Williamson with identical fitted parameters (attenuation coefficients) but considering the sources as linear sources with the radioactivity uniformly distributed on the central source axis. In contrast with Williamson’s study, the authors used the Meisberger polynomial[92] for tissue attenuation. Pérez–Calatayud et al.[191] used the GEANT4 MC code.[183] The application of this calculation method was experimentally validated with TLD. Absorbed dose was approximated by kerma with a cutoff of 10 keV. Kerma was scored in an R = 20 cm water sphere surrounding the source. Source sK was determined in dry air, using a linear fitting function to correct for air attenuation and scattering. For both simulations, in water and dry air, the linear track-length kerma estimator[129] was used. gL(r) was obtained using the line-source approximation with L = 1.8 cm over a radial range r = 0.25 cm to

15 cm. It was fit with 5th order polynomials in two domains, 0.25 cm < r < 0.8 cm and 0.8 cm r < 15 cm, respectively. The anisotropy function was obtained over the same radial range and an angular

range = 0° to 180°, with 1° angular sampling close to the source long axis. Consensus Data

The Pérez-Calatayud et al.[191] study adhered to recommendations for MC dosimetry given in Li et al.[17] and TG-43U1 report[2] with the exception that it did not provide experimental verification

of source geometry or address source geometry uncertainty. Reported values differ by 0.2%. Radial dose functions from the studies of Liu et al.[190] and Pérez-Calatayud et al.[191] agree to within 0.5%. Anisotropy functions show significant disagreement due to the simplifications of the Liu et al.[190] study: symmetrical source and radioactivity uniformly distributed along the source axis. The

average published values were used for CON = (0.902 ± 0.003) cGy h–1 U–1 (see Table XLIV). Due to

the data range and resolution, both CONgL(r) and CONF(r, ) were taken from Pérez-Calatayud et al.[191] as presented in Tables XLV and XLVI. These data are provided for full scatter conditions. An away-along table (Table XLVII) derived from the recommended consensus datasets is presented for TPS quality assurance purposes.

104 HEBD report

Table XLIV. Dose rate constant of 137Cs sources.

Seed Name (Manufacturer)

CON

[cGy h–1 U–1] Statistical uncertainty

(k = 1)


CSM-3 (E&Z BEBIG) 0.902 0.33% 1.107

IPL (RPD) 0.948 0.30% 1.101

CSM11 (E&Z BEBIG) 1.094 0.18% 1.103

The value gL(r = 0.25 cm) = 1.080 presents a step with respect to its neighbor gL(y= 0.5 cm) =

1.006. A possible reason could be an artifact of GL(r, ) due to choice of Leff = 1.8 cm and the

three source segments. A study was done by HEBD comparing: (a) gL(r) obtained using GL(r, ) and Leff = 1.8 cm, and (b) gL(r) obtained using the particle streaming function as used by Rivard[87] and

Karaiskos et al.[89] This study demonstrated that the gL(r) step was attributed to GL(r, ) due to choice of Leff = 1.8 cm.

Table XLV. Radial dose function values for 137Cs LDR sources. Interpolated/extrapolated data are boldface/underlined.

Values inside the source are in italics.

gL(r)

r [cm]

E&Z BEBIG CSM3

L = 1.8 cm

RPD IPL

L = 1.48 cm

E&Z BEBIG CSM11

L = 0.32 cm

0 1.080 1.012 1.010

0.25 1.080 1.012 1.010

0.5 1.006 1.003 1.005

0.75 1.002 1.001 1.003

1 1 1 1

1.5 0.995 0.996 0.995

2 0.989 0.992 0.990

3 0.978 0.982 0.980

4 0.965 0.971 0.969

5 0.952 0.958 0.956

6 0.937 0.944 0.942

8 0.905 0.913 0.911

10 0.869 0.877 0.875


Table XLVI. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG CSM3 source. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.812 0.812 0.819 0.825 0.832 0.846 0.860 0.863 0.862 0.861 0.859 0.871 0.875 0.862 0.875

1 0.818 0.818 0.824 0.829 0.835 0.846 0.857 0.856 0.856 0.855 0.852 0.859 0.862 0.862 0.870

2 0.821 0.821 0.825 0.830 0.834 0.844 0.853 0.850 0.847 0.846 0.844 0.848 0.853 0.857 0.864

3 0.815 0.815 0.819 0.823 0.827 0.835 0.843 0.840 0.836 0.837 0.837 0.841 0.846 0.850 0.860

4 0.808 0.808 0.812 0.816 0.819 0.827 0.834 0.831 0.830 0.830 0.831 0.835 0.841 0.846 0.858

5 0.806 0.806 0.809 0.812 0.816 0.822 0.828 0.826 0.826 0.828 0.830 0.835 0.842 0.847 0.859

6 0.801 0.801 0.805 0.808 0.812 0.819 0.826 0.825 0.826 0.830 0.835 0.841 0.847 0.852 0.862

8 0.801 0.801 0.806 0.811 0.817 0.827 0.838 0.840 0.841 0.847 0.851 0.856 0.861 0.868 0.877

10 0.623 0.623 0.668 0.712 0.757 0.846 0.857 0.860 0.862 0.867 0.871 0.876 0.880 0.885 0.892

15 0.833 0.833 0.844 0.855 0.865 0.887 0.897 0.900 0.903 0.907 0.910 0.913 0.916 0.919 0.924

20 0.946 0.946 0.941 0.936 0.931 0.920 0.928 0.930 0.932 0.935 0.936 0.939 0.940 0.941 0.944

25 1.243 1.243 1.150 1.058 0.965 0.944 0.947 0.949 0.951 0.953 0.954 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.960

30 0.903 0.903 0.972 1.041 0.985 0.960 0.962 0.963 0.964 0.966 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.968 0.970

40 0.861 0.861 0.960 1.016 0.998 0.981 0.979 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.981 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.984

50 0.923 0.923 0.967 1.003 1.000 0.991 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.991 0.992

60 0.963 0.963 0.979 0.999 1.000 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.996

70 0.987 0.987 0.991 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.999

80 0.999 0.999 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.001

110 0.986 0.986 0.991 0.998 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.999

120 0.960 0.960 0.979 0.999 1.001 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.994 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.997

130 0.918 0.918 0.967 1.004 1.001 0.991 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.991 0.991 0.992

140 0.856 0.856 0.960 1.015 0.998 0.981 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.982 0.982 0.982 0.983 0.982 0.983

150 0.902 0.902 0.972 1.041 0.984 0.960 0.961 0.962 0.963 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.968 0.968 0.970

155 1.242 1.242 1.150 1.058 0.966 0.943 0.947 0.947 0.949 0.951 0.951 0.953 0.954 0.955 0.957

160 0.946 0.946 0.941 0.936 0.930 0.920 0.925 0.926 0.927 0.930 0.932 0.935 0.937 0.939 0.942

165 0.840 0.840 0.849 0.857 0.866 0.884 0.891 0.894 0.897 0.902 0.906 0.910 0.912 0.914 0.920

170 0.637 0.637 0.676 0.715 0.754 0.832 0.846 0.851 0.853 0.859 0.864 0.870 0.874 0.879 0.888

172 0.784 0.784 0.790 0.796 0.802 0.815 0.827 0.829 0.832 0.838 0.842 0.848 0.854 0.859 0.869

174 0.790 0.790 0.793 0.796 0.800 0.807 0.813 0.812 0.813 0.817 0.823 0.830 0.837 0.842 0.854

175 0.798 0.798 0.800 0.802 0.805 0.810 0.814 0.812 0.812 0.814 0.819 0.826 0.832 0.837 0.850

176 0.800 0.800 0.803 0.806 0.810 0.816 0.823 0.820 0.819 0.820 0.823 0.828 0.833 0.838 0.849

177 0.808 0.808 0.811 0.815 0.818 0.825 0.832 0.829 0.827 0.825 0.827 0.831 0.837 0.840 0.851

178 0.820 0.820 0.823 0.826 0.829 0.835 0.841 0.838 0.837 0.835 0.836 0.841 0.844 0.849 0.859

179 0.814 0.814 0.818 0.823 0.827 0.835 0.843 0.843 0.843 0.840 0.841 0.846 0.847 0.851 0.860

180 0.792 0.792 0.798 0.805 0.812 0.825 0.838 0.842 0.839 0.835 0.836 0.841 0.843 0.842 0.851

106 HEBD report

Table XLVII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG CSM3 source. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated values are underlined.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01852 0.01802 0.01771 0.01772 0.01787 0.01805 0.01789 0.01674 0.01502 0.01315 0.01136 0.00974

6 0.0257 0.0249 0.0244 0.0246 0.0249 0.0250 0.0245 0.0222 0.01920 0.01630 0.01366 0.01142

5 0.0374 0.0364 0.0359 0.0364 0.0368 0.0364 0.0349 0.0301 0.0249 0.0202 0.01638 0.01331

4 0.0605 0.0583 0.0580 0.0590 0.0590 0.0568 0.0524 0.0419 0.0324 0.0250 0.01945 0.01534

3 0.1140 0.1084 0.1094 0.1098 0.1072 0.0965 0.0832 0.0592 0.0420 0.0305 0.0227 0.01733

2 0.295 0.279 0.277 0.260 0.235 0.1812 0.1378 0.0824 0.0527 0.0359 0.0257 0.01906

1.5 0.647 0.599 0.545 0.459 0.375 0.252 0.1753 0.0949 0.0578 0.0382 0.0269 0.01974

1 4.85 2.21 1.326 0.856 0.598 0.338 0.215 0.1061 0.0619 0.0401 0.0278 0.02026

0.5 1.82×105 6.46 2.35 1.288 0.818 0.412 0.246 0.1140 0.0647 0.0413 0.0284 0.02059

0 9.71×107 6.91 2.63 1.440 0.902 0.441 0.257 0.1169 0.0657 0.0417 0.0286 0.02071

–0.5 1.78×105 6.46 2.35 1.289 0.818 0.412 0.246 0.1140 0.0647 0.0413 0.0284 0.02060

–1 4.73 2.21 1.326 0.856 0.598 0.338 0.215 0.1061 0.0620 0.0401 0.0278 0.02028

–1.5 0.631 0.590 0.544 0.459 0.375 0.252 0.1753 0.0949 0.0578 0.0383 0.0269 0.01976

–2 0.288 0.275 0.275 0.260 0.234 0.1811 0.1378 0.0824 0.0527 0.0359 0.0257 0.01907

–3 0.1109 0.1066 0.1083 0.1090 0.1066 0.0963 0.0831 0.0592 0.0420 0.0305 0.0227 0.01732

–4 0.0587 0.0576 0.0573 0.0584 0.0587 0.0565 0.0523 0.0419 0.0324 0.0250 0.01945 0.01533

–5 0.0365 0.0360 0.0354 0.0361 0.0365 0.0363 0.0348 0.0301 0.0249 0.0202 0.01639 0.01331

–6 0.0248 0.0246 0.0242 0.0244 0.0247 0.0249 0.0244 0.0221 0.01920 0.01629 0.01366 0.01142

–7 0.01784 0.01784 0.01754 0.01753 0.0177 0.0179 0.01782 0.01669 0.01502 0.01314 0.01136 0.00974

A.4.2. IPL (Radiation Products Design) Source Description

The IPL 137Cs, Model 67-6520, sources are 3.05 mm in diameter and 20 mm in length. These sources are manufactured by Isotope Product Laboratories (IPL, Valencia, CA) and distributed by Radiation Products Design, Inc. (Albertville, MN). See Figure 19.

Figure 19. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the Radiation Products Design model 67-6520 137Cs source.[193] The source tip is on the side of the aluminum ring.


Figure 19 shows a schematic diagram of this source model. The capsules of these sources are composed of two layers of 304 stainless steel with a total wall thickness of 0.584 mm. There are two end caps (one for each capsule layer) on each end of the source. The total thickness of the end cap on one side is 2 mm and on the opposite side it is 3 mm. The active portion of the source is 1.52 mm in diameter and 14.8 mm in length. The 137Cs radionuclide is uniformly distributed in a core of cesium oxide ceramic, assuming approximately 5.29 mg Cs2O in a 50 mCi source. The mass density of the active ceramic material is 1.47 g/cm3, while the density of the ceramic itself is 1.27 g/cm3. A color-coded aluminum ring easily identifies the source activity and defines the source tip. The SK calibration is traceable to NIST through the University of Wisconsin ADCL in Madison. Publications

The GEANT4 (version 8.0) MC code was used by Meigooni et al.[193] to calculate the air- kerma and the dose rate distributions around an IPL 137Cs source in liquid water and in Solid WaterTM phantom materials. TLD measurements were done to validate MC calculations. The track-length estimator was used to derive kerma. In order to validate the accuracy of the source design, dimensions, and composition materials used in the MC studies, simulations were performed in a

(30 30 25) cm3 Solid WaterTM phantom, which is identical to that used in the experimental setup for TLD measurements. They followed AAPM TG-43U1 recommendations[2] in both MC calculations and TLD measurements. In their data analysis, an active length L = 1.48 cm was used to

calculate GL(r, ) in both dosimetric investigations. In this study, the MC-calculated values were validated by comparison of the simulated data with the TLD measured values in the same phantom material. Consensus Data

The data from Meigooni et al.[193] are the only published data about this source. Their MC results

were validated against TLD measurement. In general, the agreement was good. Moreover, the MC value they obtained, once corrected by the geometry factor, is close to that for the CSM3 source, as

expected. Subsequently, MC = 0.948 cGy h–1 U–1 ± 2.6% (see Table XLIV), MCgL(r), and MCF(r, ) were introduced for their clinical applications (Table XLV and Table XLVIII, respectively). Because there is only the one study for this source, the derived MC TG-43 data from Meigooni et al.[193] are recommended as consensus data. In addition, Meigooni et al.[193] provided the tabulated data that was required in source characterization with the primary and scatter dose separation (PSS) formalism.[73,148] Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate table is

presented (cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table XLIX).

108 HEBD report

Table XLVIII. F(r,θ) for the Radiation Products Design IPL source. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.

r (cm)

θ (deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.935 0.935 0.930 0.926 0.921 0.912 0.903 0.899 0.899 0.898 0.905 0.910 0.904 0.910 1 0.939 0.939 0.934 0.930 0.925 0.916 0.907 0.906 0.906 0.908 0.911 0.915 0.915 0.919 2 0.930 0.930 0.927 0.925 0.922 0.917 0.912 0.910 0.911 0.913 0.914 0.917 0.921 0.922 3 0.925 0.925 0.923 0.922 0.920 0.917 0.914 0.910 0.909 0.911 0.913 0.915 0.918 0.921 4 0.933 0.933 0.930 0.927 0.924 0.918 0.912 0.905 0.904 0.906 0.909 0.911 0.913 0.919 5 0.937 0.937 0.933 0.929 0.925 0.917 0.909 0.901 0.900 0.902 0.904 0.907 0.910 0.916 6 0.938 0.938 0.933 0.928 0.923 0.913 0.903 0.897 0.898 0.900 0.903 0.907 0.910 0.915 8 0.919 0.919 0.916 0.913 0.910 0.904 0.898 0.898 0.900 0.905 0.908 0.910 0.914 0.920

10 0.921 0.921 0.919 0.917 0.915 0.911 0.907 0.907 0.910 0.914 0.918 0.920 0.923 0.928 15 1.004 1.004 0.992 0.980 0.968 0.944 0.940 0.937 0.937 0.940 0.941 0.943 0.944 0.948 20 1.050 1.050 1.027 1.004 0.981 0.966 0.960 0.957 0.958 0.959 0.960 0.961 0.961 0.964 25 1.026 1.026 1.014 1.002 0.988 0.978 0.974 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.972 30 1.018 1.018 1.009 1.000 0.993 0.985 0.983 0.980 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.980 40 1.007 1.007 1.003 0.999 0.997 0.993 0.992 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 50 1.005 1.005 1.002 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.996 0.995 0.994 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 60 1.005 1.005 1.001 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997 70 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 80 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 90 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 100 1.001 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 110 1.002 1.002 1.001 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 120 1.004 1.004 1.001 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 130 1.003 1.003 1.001 0.999 0.998 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.994 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 140 1.009 1.009 1.004 0.999 0.997 0.992 0.992 0.990 0.989 0.990 0.989 0.990 0.989 0.989 150 1.017 1.017 1.009 1.001 0.993 0.985 0.983 0.980 0.979 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 155 1.027 1.027 1.014 1.001 0.988 0.977 0.974 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.972 0.972 0.972 0.973 160 1.050 1.050 1.027 1.004 0.981 0.964 0.960 0.958 0.958 0.960 0.961 0.961 0.962 0.964 165 1.000 1.000 0.989 0.978 0.967 0.945 0.941 0.939 0.940 0.942 0.944 0.946 0.947 0.950 170 0.922 0.922 0.921 0.920 0.919 0.917 0.915 0.915 0.916 0.920 0.922 0.926 0.927 0.932 172 0.927 0.927 0.924 0.922 0.919 0.914 0.909 0.908 0.910 0.913 0.916 0.919 0.922 0.927 174 0.953 0.953 0.948 0.943 0.938 0.928 0.918 0.911 0.910 0.912 0.915 0.918 0.920 0.925 175 0.959 0.959 0.954 0.950 0.945 0.936 0.927 0.918 0.917 0.917 0.918 0.920 0.922 0.927 176 0.962 0.962 0.958 0.954 0.950 0.942 0.934 0.925 0.923 0.924 0.925 0.926 0.927 0.933 177 0.953 0.953 0.951 0.949 0.947 0.943 0.939 0.934 0.931 0.931 0.930 0.931 0.933 0.936 178 0.953 0.953 0.951 0.949 0.947 0.943 0.939 0.937 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.935 0.938 0.939 179 0.953 0.953 0.950 0.948 0.945 0.940 0.935 0.931 0.932 0.934 0.934 0.933 0.936 0.939 180 0.940 0.940 0.938 0.937 0.935 0.932 0.929 0.922 0.925 0.929 0.927 0.928 0.930 0.937


Table XLIX. QA away-along data [cGy⋅h–1⋅U–1] for the Radiation Products Design IPL source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 0.01919 0.01931 0.01910 0.01889 0.01880 0.01868 0.01833 0.01699 0.01519 0.01326 0.01144 0.00980

6 0.0265 0.0267 0.0263 0.0261 0.0260 0.0257 0.0249 0.0224 0.01937 0.01640 0.01373 0.01148

5 0.0387 0.0392 0.0384 0.0382 0.0380 0.0372 0.0354 0.0303 0.0250 0.02031 0.01645 0.01336

4 0.0621 0.0624 0.0611 0.0608 0.0603 0.0574 0.0527 0.0420 0.0325 0.0251 0.01952 0.01539

3 0.1149 0.1143 0.1120 0.1109 0.1076 0.0965 0.0832 0.0593 0.0421 0.0306 0.0228 0.01738

2 0.285 0.278 0.271 0.255 0.230 0.1794 0.1373 0.0825 0.0529 0.0360 0.0257 0.01913

1.5 0.587 0.557 0.514 0.440 0.365 0.250 0.1750 0.0951 0.0580 0.0384 0.0270 0.01982

1 2.24 1.773 1.191 0.816 0.586 0.338 0.216 0.1066 0.0622 0.0402 0.0279 0.02034

0.5 2.50×105 6.44 2.44 1.325 0.837 0.419 0.249 0.1147 0.0650 0.0414 0.0285 0.0207

0 1.26×108 7.46 2.92 1.548 0.948 0.453 0.261 0.1177 0.0660 0.0418 0.0287 0.0208

–0.5 2.52×105 6.44 2.44 1.326 0.837 0.419 0.248 0.1147 0.0650 0.0414 0.0285 0.0207

–1 2.28 1.774 1.191 0.816 0.586 0.338 0.216 0.1066 0.0622 0.0402 0.0279 0.02034

–1.5 0.601 0.561 0.514 0.440 0.365 0.250 0.1750 0.0951 0.0580 0.0384 0.0270 0.01982

–2 0.293 0.282 0.272 0.255 0.230 0.1794 0.1372 0.0825 0.0529 0.0360 0.0257 0.01913

–3 0.1178 0.1166 0.1130 0.1113 0.1078 0.0965 0.0832 0.0592 0.0421 0.0305 0.0227 0.01738

–4 0.0639 0.0638 0.0618 0.0611 0.0605 0.0574 0.0527 0.0421 0.0325 0.0251 0.01952 0.01539

–5 0.0400 0.0400 0.0389 0.0385 0.0382 0.0372 0.0354 0.0303 0.0250 0.02032 0.01646 0.01336

–6 0.0272 0.0273 0.0267 0.0264 0.0262 0.0258 0.0250 0.0224 0.01937 0.01641 0.01374 0.01148

–7 0.01957 0.01969 0.01941 0.01912 0.01897 0.01876 0.01838 0.01701 0.01520 0.01326 0.01144 0.00980

A.4.3. CSM11 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

This 137Cs source manufactured by E&Z BEBIG is used in manual and remote-controlled LDR afterloading systems. The source (Figure 20) is composed of a cylindrical pollucite pellet, 0.85 mm in diameter and 3.6 mm long. The pellet is encapsulated in stainless steel with total length of 5.2 mm and with an outer diameter of 1.65 mm. The 137Cs radionuclide is uniformly distributed in the active pellets. The source is asymmetric due to the hemispherical end.

Figure 20. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG CSM11 source.[62]


The CSM11 source has been studied by Ballester et al.[62] and by Otal et al.[194] using both Monte Carlo methods. Calculation guidelines described in Li et al.[17] and TG-43U1[2] have been closely adhered to in both studies. Only calculated data have been published for this source, which belongs in the category of conventionally encapsulated 137Cs and 192Ir similar in design to existing ones where a single dosimetric study is sufficient.[17] Ballester et al.[62] used GEANT3 MC code to generate an away-along table and TG-43 parameters. Electron transport was performed and a cutoff energy of 10 keV was taken for both electron and photons. The origin of coordinates is the geometrical center of the source instead of the center of the active part as recommended in this report. The reported dosimetric data are of poor

quality because they are too noisy. They obtained a = 1.096 ± 0.002 cGy h–1 U–1. Otal et al.[194] studied this source considering the same dimensions and composition materials as Ballester et al.[62] but using the GEANT4 code and using track-length kerma estimator. In this case authors considered the origin of coordinates at the center of the active part, as it is recommended in this report. Parameters and simulation conditions were the same that in Ballester et al.[62] They

obtained a = 1.094 ± 0.002 cGy h–1 U–1 and derived gL(r) and F(r, ) along with an away-along table. The data presented are of low noise. Consensus Dataset

Because Ballester et al.[62] considered the origin of coordinates at the capsule center and the

their data have larger statistical uncertainties, CON = 1.094 ± 0.002 cGy h–1 U–1 (see Table XLIV),

CONgL(r) (see Table XLV), and CONF(r, ) (see Table L) were taken from the study of Otal et al.[194] An away-along table derived from the recommended consensus datasets is presented for TPS quality assurance purposes (see Table LI).

Table L. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG CSM11 source. Extrapolated data are underlined. Values inside the source are in italics.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 6 8 10

0 0.968 0.968 0.964 0.960 0.963 0.957 0.957 0.956 0.954 0.952 0.954 0.953 0.956

1 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.966 0.965 0.965 0.963 0.963 0.965 0.966 0.966

2 0.976 0.976 0.974 0.972 0.971 0.970 0.969 0.969 0.968 0.968 0.970 0.972 0.972

5 0.977 0.977 0.973 0.969 0.967 0.965 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.965 0.967 0.969 0.971

8 0.973 0.973 0.968 0.963 0.962 0.961 0.961 0.961 0.962 0.963 0.964 0.967 0.969

10 0.966 0.966 0.963 0.960 0.959 0.959 0.959 0.959 0.960 0.961 0.964 0.965 0.968

15 0.957 0.957 0.958 0.959 0.959 0.960 0.960 0.961 0.962 0.964 0.966 0.968 0.970

20 0.962 0.962 0.964 0.966 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.971 0.973 0.974 0.976

25 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.973 0.974 0.975 0.975 0.976 0.977 0.977 0.979 0.981 0.981

30 0.978 0.978 0.979 0.980 0.981 0.982 0.982 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.985 0.986

40 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.992 0.992


Table L (continued).

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 6 8 10

50 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.996

60 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998

70 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

80 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000

110 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

120 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.996 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997

130 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.992 0.993 0.993 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995

140 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.987 0.988 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.991 0.991

150 0.976 0.976 0.978 0.980 0.980 0.982 0.983 0.983 0.984 0.984 0.986 0.986 0.987

155 0.972 0.972 0.974 0.976 0.976 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.981 0.982 0.983 0.984

160 0.969 0.969 0.970 0.971 0.972 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.976 0.977 0.979 0.980 0.981

165 0.970 0.970 0.971 0.972 0.972 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.973 0.974 0.976 0.977 0.978

170 0.980 0.980 0.979 0.978 0.977 0.975 0.975 0.974 0.974 0.975 0.976 0.978 0.979

172 0.983 0.983 0.982 0.981 0.979 0.978 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.978 0.979 0.980 0.980

175 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.983 0.982 0.982 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.982 0.983 0.985

178 0.980 0.980 0.982 0.984 0.982 0.982 0.982 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.982 0.983 0.982

179 0.980 0.980 0.978 0.976 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.976 0.977 0.977 0.977 0.979 0.980

180 0.974 0.974 0.968 0.962 0.967 0.971 0.969 0.972 0.974 0.973 0.967 0.972 0.978

Table LI. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG CSM11 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01990 0.0202 0.0201 0.01994 0.01973 0.01922 0.01860 0.01707 0.01521 0.01328 0.01145 0.00981

6 0.0276 0.0280 0.0277 0.0274 0.0271 0.0262 0.0251 0.0224 0.0193 0.01640 0.01374 0.01149

5 0.0397 0.0402 0.0398 0.0392 0.0385 0.0369 0.0350 0.0301 0.0249 0.0203 0.01646 0.01338

4 0.0637 0.0644 0.0634 0.0620 0.0605 0.0566 0.0517 0.0411 0.0323 0.0251 0.01953 0.01541

3 0.1149 0.1154 0.1125 0.1089 0.1047 0.0939 0.0815 0.0586 0.0414 0.0305 0.0228 0.01742

2 0.263 0.260 0.248 0.233 0.214 0.1721 0.1345 0.0824 0.0527 0.0358 0.0258 0.01918

1.5 0.472 0.460 0.427 0.383 0.333 0.241 0.173 0.0956 0.0581 0.0381 0.0271 0.01989

1 1.090 1.018 0.874 0.701 0.547 0.336 0.218 0.1079 0.0626 0.0400 0.0280 0.0204

0.5 4.76 3.67 2.23 1.357 0.878 0.438 0.256 0.1167 0.0657 0.0411 0.0287 0.0207

0 6.07×108 15.86 4.29 1.938 1.094 0.486 0.27 0.1200 0.0668 0.0416 0.0289 0.0209

–0.5 4.78 3.68 2.23 1.356 0.878 0.437 0.26 0.1167 0.0657 0.0411 0.0287 0.0207

–1 1.095 1.033 0.875 0.700 0.547 0.335 0.217 0.1078 0.0626 0.0399 0.0280 0.0204

–1.5 0.479 0.468 0.431 0.384 0.333 0.241 0.1731 0.0955 0.0581 0.0381 0.0271 0.01988

–2 0.266 0.265 0.251 0.234 0.214 0.1720 0.1344 0.0823 0.0526 0.0358 0.0258 0.01918

–3 0.1173 0.1173 0.1142 0.1102 0.1055 0.0941 0.0816 0.0586 0.0414 0.0305 0.0228 0.01741

–4 0.0651 0.0653 0.0644 0.0629 0.0611 0.0569 0.0519 0.0411 0.0323 0.0251 0.01952 0.01540

–5 0.0404 0.0407 0.0404 0.0398 0.0390 0.0373 0.0351 0.0302 0.0249 0.0203 0.01645 0.01337

–6 0.0279 0.0283 0.0282 0.0279 0.0274 0.0265 0.0253 0.0225 0.01936 0.01638 0.01373 0.01148

–7 0.0202 0.0205 0.0204 0.0202 0.0200 0.01944 0.01877 0.01713 0.01523 0.01327 0.01144 0.00980

112 HEBD report A.5. High Dose Rate 60Co sources A.5.1. GK60M21 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

This 60Co HDR source (E&Z BEBIG) is similar in shape and materials to other commercially available 192Ir HDR sources. This source model is composed of a central cylindrical active core made of metallic 60Co, 3.5 mm in length and with a diameter of 0.6 mm. This active core is covered by a cylindrical 316L stainless steel cover of 1 mm external diameter. This 60Co HDR source is shown schematically in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG model GK60M21 source.[11]

Publications

The MC GEANT4 code was used by Ballester et al.[11] to obtain the dose rate distribution following the Li et al.[17] prerequisites. Only the gamma part of the 60Co spectrum was considered. The beta spectrum contribution to the dose was assumed to be negligible.[28] A cutoff energy of 10 keV was used for both photons and electrons. Ballester et al., scored kerma and dose separately to account for the electronic disequilibrium near the source due to the high energy of the photons emitted. For points located at distances of less than 1 cm from the source they scored dose, while for distances where electronic equilibrium is achieved they scored kerma. They derived TG-43U1 parameters[2] and an away-along table. Selvam and Bhola[195] reproduced the Ballester et al.[11] study but using the EGSnrc code. They derived only an away-along table. The comparison of away-along tables from both studies reveals consistency between both studies except at y = 0.25 cm and z = –0.25, z = 0, and z = 0.25 cm where the Ballester et al.[11] data had an error.


Consensus Dataset

An average CON = (1.089 ± 0.055) cGy h–1 U–1 was taken (see Table LIII). Selvam and Bhola[195] data are taken as consensus for CONgL(r) (Table LII) because of higher resolution close to the source and the previously noted error at r = 0.25 cm in the other published study. Ballester et

al.[11] data for F(r, ) (Table LIV) is taken as consensus data because of the previous demonstration of away-along table agreement. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-along dose rate

table is presented (cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table LV).

Table LII. Consensus radial dose function values for 60Co HDR sources. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.

gL(r)

r [cm]

E&Z BEBIG GK60M21 L = 0.35 cm

E&Z BEBIG Co0.A86

L = 0.35 cm

0 0.830 0.830

0.1 0.830 0.830

0.15 0.961 0.961

0.2 1.037 1.037

0.25 1.072 1.072

0.3 1.077 1.077

0.35 1.066 1.066

0.4 1.050 1.050

0.45 1.037 1.037

0.5 1.028 1.028

0.6 1.019 1.019

0.65 1.018 1.018

0.75 1.011 1.011

1 1 1

1.5 0.992 0.992

2 0.984 0.984

3 0.968 0.968

4 0.952 0.952

5 0.935 0.936

6 0.919 0.919

8 0.884 0.884

10 0.849 0.849

Table LIII. Dose rate constant for HDR 60Co sources.

Seed Name (Manufacturer)

CON [cGy·h-1·U-1]

Statistical uncertainty

(k = 1)


GK60M21 (E&Z BEBIG) 1.089 0.5% 1.100

Co0.A86 (E&Z BEBIG) 1.092 0.5% 1.103

114 HEBD report

Table LIV. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co HDR GK60M21 source. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.894 0.894 0.923 0.951 0.931 0.931 0.934 0.932 0.928 0.926 0.927 0.939 0.936 0.941

1 0.898 0.898 0.925 0.953 0.934 0.933 0.934 0.935 0.934 0.933 0.934 0.940 0.940 0.943

2 0.895 0.895 0.924 0.952 0.937 0.937 0.937 0.939 0.940 0.942 0.943 0.945 0.945 0.947

3 0.898 0.898 0.925 0.953 0.938 0.939 0.939 0.939 0.940 0.942 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.949

4 0.898 0.898 0.926 0.954 0.938 0.938 0.938 0.938 0.940 0.942 0.944 0.946 0.947 0.949

5 0.898 0.898 0.927 0.956 0.941 0.940 0.939 0.941 0.942 0.944 0.945 0.946 0.947 0.949

6 0.899 0.899 0.929 0.958 0.943 0.943 0.942 0.944 0.944 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.949 0.952

8 0.909 0.909 0.934 0.959 0.946 0.947 0.948 0.949 0.951 0.951 0.952 0.953 0.954 0.958

10 0.914 0.914 0.938 0.962 0.951 0.952 0.953 0.954 0.955 0.957 0.957 0.959 0.959 0.961

15 0.930 0.930 0.950 0.969 0.967 0.968 0.967 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.970 0.971 0.971

20 0.671 0.671 0.966 0.983 0.977 0.978 0.978 0.979 0.979 0.980 0.979 0.980 0.981 0.980

25 0.719 0.719 0.983 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986

30 0.769 0.769 0.989 0.992 0.988 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989

40 0.862 0.862 0.997 0.995 0.993 0.995 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994

50 0.918 0.918 1.000 1.000 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997

60 0.957 0.957 0.999 1.001 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998

70 0.974 0.974 0.999 1.001 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

80 0.990 0.990 0.995 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 0.990 0.990 0.994 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.999

110 0.975 0.975 0.997 1.001 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

120 0.956 0.956 0.999 1.000 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999

130 0.918 0.918 1.001 0.999 0.996 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.996 0.996 0.997

140 0.862 0.862 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.995 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995

150 0.773 0.773 0.983 0.996 0.991 0.991 0.991 0.990 0.991 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990

155 0.724 0.724 0.971 0.984 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986 0.986

160 0.678 0.678 0.943 0.976 0.980 0.979 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.979 0.978 0.978 0.979 0.978

165 0.843 0.843 0.897 0.951 0.967 0.967 0.966 0.966 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.968 0.968 0.968

170 0.763 0.763 0.832 0.902 0.939 0.938 0.938 0.937 0.938 0.939 0.940 0.940 0.942 0.944

172 0.770 0.770 0.819 0.869 0.918 0.917 0.917 0.919 0.920 0.921 0.923 0.924 0.926 0.929

174 0.737 0.737 0.786 0.835 0.885 0.885 0.884 0.885 0.887 0.890 0.892 0.896 0.898 0.901

175 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.857 0.858 0.861 0.864 0.868 0.871 0.875 0.878 0.883

176 0.813 0.813 0.813 0.813 0.814 0.814 0.816 0.821 0.827 0.833 0.838 0.842 0.846 0.855

177 0.791 0.791 0.783 0.775 0.767 0.750 0.755 0.762 0.771 0.779 0.787 0.794 0.799 0.812

178 0.861 0.861 0.823 0.785 0.747 0.671 0.650 0.658 0.672 0.687 0.698 0.709 0.719 0.741

179 0.913 0.913 0.856 0.799 0.742 0.629 0.560 0.549 0.568 0.585 0.602 0.616 0.631 0.659

180 0.833 0.833 0.819 0.792 0.737 0.627 0.540 0.511 0.530 0.546 0.564 0.580 0.596 0.623


Table LV. QA away-along data[cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co GK60M21 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01901 0.01909 0.01904 0.01896 0.01889 0.01859 0.01809 0.01662 0.01478 0.01288 0.01109 0.00950 6 0.0260 0.0265 0.0263 0.0262 0.0261 0.0255 0.0245 0.0219 0.01882 0.01590 0.01331 0.01112

5 0.0381 0.0387 0.0385 0.0383 0.0379 0.0366 0.0346 0.0295 0.0243 0.01972 0.01595 0.0129

4 0.0608 0.0614 0.0612 0.0605 0.0595 0.0560 0.0512 0.0408 0.0316 0.0244 0.01894 0.0149

3 0.1106 0.1108 0.1099 0.1077 0.1038 0.0929 0.0804 0.0577 0.0410 0.0297 0.0221 0.0169

2 0.254 0.254 0.247 0.233 0.213 0.1708 0.1330 0.0809 0.0518 0.0352 0.0251 0.01859

1.5 0.458 0.454 0.429 0.384 0.333 0.239 0.1714 0.0939 0.0570 0.0375 0.0263 0.01928

1 1.055 1.024 0.881 0.703 0.547 0.333 0.215 0.1060 0.0614 0.0395 0.0273 0.01979

0.5 4.75 3.81 2.27 1.361 0.875 0.434 0.254 0.1148 0.0643 0.0407 0.0279 0.0201

0 4.20×108 16.45 4.35 1.941 1.089 0.483 0.270 0.1181 0.0654 0.0411 0.0281 0.0202

–0.5 4.22 3.78 2.27 1.361 0.875 0.434 0.254 0.1148 0.0643 0.0407 0.0278 0.0201

–1 0.836 1.021 0.882 0.704 0.547 0.334 0.215 0.1060 0.0614 0.0395 0.0272 0.01979

–1.5 0.308 0.445 0.430 0.385 0.333 0.240 0.1714 0.0939 0.0570 0.0376 0.0263 0.01927

–2 0.147 0.242 0.246 0.233 0.214 0.1711 0.1331 0.0809 0.0518 0.0352 0.0251 0.01858

–3 0.0606 0.1003 0.1075 0.1071 0.1037 0.0930 0.0805 0.0577 0.0410 0.0298 0.0221 0.01687

–4 0.0347 0.0524 0.0584 0.0596 0.0592 0.0560 0.0513 0.0409 0.0317 0.0244 0.01895 0.01492

–5 0.0225 0.0315 0.0360 0.0372 0.0374 0.0365 0.0346 0.0295 0.0243 0.0197 0.01594 0.01294

–6 0.01583 0.0205 0.0241 0.0251 0.0255 0.0253 0.0245 0.0219 0.01884 0.0159 0.01331 0.01112

–7 0.01175 0.01440 0.01701 0.01795 0.01833 0.01836 0.01805 0.01661 0.01479 0.0129 0.01110 0.00951

A.5.2. Co0.A86 (E&Z BEBIG) Source Description

The geometric design and materials of the E&Z BEBIG 60Co model Co0.A86 source are shown schematically in Figure 22. It is very similar to the E&Z BEBIG model GK60M21 source (Appendix A.5.1), both in design and materials. The model Co0.A86 source differs from the model GK60M21 in that it has a smaller active core (0.5 mm in diameter for this source vs. 0.6 mm in diameter for the GK60M21) and a more rounded capsule tip. The model Co0.A86 source is composed of a central cylindrical active core made of metallic 60Co, 3.5 mm in length and with a diameter of 0.5 mm. The active core is covered by a cylindrical stainless steel capsule 0.15 mm thick with an external diameter of 1 mm. Publications

Granero et al.[12] used GEANT4 MC code to obtain the dose rate distribution adhering to the Li et al.[17] prerequisites. The same type of study described in Appendix A.5.1 for the GK60M21 source model was done for the present source. Selvam and Bhola[195] also reproduced the Granero et al.[12] study but using the EGSnrc code, obtaining only an away-along table. The comparison of away-along tables from both studies reveals that at y = 0.25 cm and z = –0.25, z = 0, and z = 0.25 cm the Granero et al.[12] data are underestimated. This is the same typo as in Ballester et al.[11] data for the

116 HEBD report model GK60M21 source. However, some inconsistencies are observed in the Selvam and Bhola[195] data because at large distances from the source their data are not symmetric.

Figure 22. Materials and dimensions (mm) of the E&Z BEBIG model Co0.A86 source.[12]

Consensus Dataset

An average CON = 1.092 ± 0.011 cGy h–1 U–1 was taken. Because of the error in Granero et

al.[12] data, Selvam and Bhola[195] data for CONgL(r) (Table LII) and Granero et al.[12] data for F(r, ) (Table LVI) were taken as consensus data. Derived from the consensus TG-43 dataset, an away-

along dose rate table is presented (cGy h–1 U–1) for TPS quality assurance purposes (Table LVII).


Table LVI. F(r, ) for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co HDR Co0.A86 source. Values inside the source are in italics. Extrapolated data are underlined.

r (cm)

(deg) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

0 0.984 0.984 0.965 0.946 0.923 0.945 0.947 0.945 0.944 0.945 0.945 0.947 0.947 0.952

1 0.981 0.981 0.971 0.961 0.952 0.947 0.947 0.946 0.946 0.948 0.949 0.951 0.952 0.955

2 0.977 0.977 0.971 0.964 0.963 0.952 0.952 0.952 0.953 0.955 0.956 0.957 0.959 0.959

3 0.963 0.963 0.964 0.965 0.958 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.958 0.959 0.960 0.961 0.962 0.964

4 0.951 0.951 0.961 0.971 0.961 0.959 0.960 0.961 0.962 0.962 0.964 0.965 0.966 0.968

5 0.938 0.938 0.958 0.977 0.965 0.962 0.962 0.963 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.970

6 0.939 0.939 0.958 0.977 0.966 0.964 0.964 0.964 0.965 0.965 0.966 0.967 0.968 0.970

8 0.944 0.944 0.962 0.979 0.971 0.967 0.967 0.967 0.968 0.968 0.969 0.970 0.971 0.972

10 0.952 0.952 0.967 0.983 0.978 0.971 0.971 0.971 0.972 0.972 0.973 0.973 0.974 0.975

15 0.970 0.970 0.976 0.981 0.981 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.979 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.981

20 0.734 0.734 0.982 0.989 0.990 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.986 0.986 0.986

25 0.788 0.788 1.001 0.995 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.989 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990

30 0.821 0.821 0.994 0.994 0.991 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.992 0.993 0.993 0.993 0.992

40 0.894 0.894 1.002 0.999 0.998 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996

50 0.942 0.942 1.002 0.998 0.996 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999

60 0.974 0.974 0.998 1.003 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999

70 0.991 0.991 1.000 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

80 1.000 1.000 0.999 1.000 1.002 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

100 1.000 1.000 0.997 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

110 0.995 0.995 1.002 1.000 0.998 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.999 0.999 1.000 0.999 1.000

120 0.982 0.982 0.999 1.002 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.999 0.998

130 0.957 0.957 1.002 0.995 0.996 0.999 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.998 0.997 0.998 0.998 0.998

140 0.913 0.913 1.006 0.997 0.992 0.996 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.995

150 0.843 0.843 0.996 0.990 0.988 0.991 0.991 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.990 0.991 0.991 0.991

155 0.806 0.806 0.995 0.984 0.988 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.986 0.986 0.987 0.987 0.987

160 0.735 0.735 0.968 0.980 0.979 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.981 0.981 0.981 0.982 0.982 0.982

165 0.939 0.939 0.953 0.966 0.970 0.969 0.969 0.969 0.970 0.970 0.970 0.971 0.972 0.973

170 0.925 0.925 0.940 0.955 0.959 0.954 0.954 0.955 0.956 0.957 0.958 0.960 0.961 0.962

172 0.923 0.923 0.934 0.944 0.954 0.944 0.944 0.946 0.947 0.949 0.950 0.951 0.952 0.954

174 0.917 0.917 0.926 0.936 0.945 0.934 0.934 0.936 0.937 0.939 0.941 0.942 0.944 0.947

175 0.971 0.971 0.960 0.949 0.938 0.927 0.928 0.930 0.932 0.934 0.936 0.938 0.939 0.942

176 0.973 0.973 0.960 0.947 0.934 0.922 0.923 0.925 0.928 0.929 0.931 0.934 0.936 0.939

177 0.966 0.966 0.954 0.942 0.931 0.919 0.919 0.921 0.924 0.926 0.928 0.930 0.932 0.936

178 0.991 0.991 0.971 0.952 0.932 0.913 0.914 0.918 0.920 0.922 0.924 0.925 0.929 0.933

179 1.005 1.005 0.981 0.957 0.932 0.908 0.908 0.911 0.913 0.915 0.918 0.918 0.921 0.926

180 0.996 0.996 0.975 0.953 0.931 0.909 0.907 0.907 0.909 0.912 0.915 0.914 0.914 0.921

118 HEBD report

Table LVII. QA away-along data [cGy h–1 U–1] for the E&Z BEBIG 60Co Co0.A86 source. Values inside the source are in italics.

y (cm)

z (cm) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 0.01923 0.01941 0.01949 0.01941 0.01928 0.01889 0.01832 0.01675 0.01488 0.01295 0.01115 0.00955

6 0.0266 0.0269 0.0270 0.0268 0.0266 0.0259 0.0248 0.0220 0.01893 0.01598 0.01338 0.01118

5 0.0391 0.0395 0.0395 0.0391 0.0387 0.0371 0.0349 0.0297 0.0244 0.01981 0.01602 0.0130

4 0.0621 0.0629 0.0626 0.0617 0.0604 0.0565 0.0516 0.0411 0.0318 0.0245 0.01902 0.0150

3 0.1125 0.1138 0.1123 0.1093 0.1050 0.0936 0.0809 0.0580 0.0412 0.0299 0.0222 0.0169

2 0.259 0.260 0.251 0.235 0.215 0.1718 0.1336 0.0812 0.0520 0.0353 0.0252 0.01865

1.5 0.466 0.465 0.434 0.387 0.335 0.241 0.1721 0.0942 0.0572 0.0377 0.0264 0.01933

1 1.050 1.045 0.888 0.707 0.549 0.335 0.216 0.1064 0.0616 0.0396 0.0273 0.01985

0.5 4.99 3.87 2.28 1.366 0.878 0.436 0.255 0.1152 0.0645 0.0408 0.0279 0.0202

0 4.29×108 16.51 4.36 1.948 1.092 0.484 0.271 0.1185 0.0656 0.0413 0.0282 0.0203

–0.5 5.04 3.85 2.27 1.365 0.878 0.436 0.255 0.1153 0.0646 0.0409 0.0279 0.0202

–1 1.059 1.032 0.886 0.705 0.549 0.335 0.216 0.1064 0.0616 0.0396 0.0273 0.01986

–1.5 0.448 0.456 0.432 0.386 0.334 0.241 0.1721 0.0943 0.0572 0.0377 0.0264 0.01934

–2 0.248 0.253 0.248 0.234 0.215 0.1716 0.1336 0.0812 0.0520 0.0353 0.0252 0.01865

–3 0.1079 0.1098 0.1103 0.1081 0.1043 0.0934 0.0808 0.0579 0.0412 0.0299 0.0222 0.01693

–4 0.0597 0.0606 0.0610 0.0608 0.0597 0.0563 0.0515 0.0411 0.0318 0.0245 0.01901 0.01496

–5 0.0377 0.0382 0.0384 0.0384 0.0381 0.0368 0.0348 0.0297 0.0244 0.0198 0.01602 0.01300

–6 0.02577 0.0260 0.0261 0.0262 0.0262 0.0256 0.0247 0.0220 0.01891 0.0160 0.01337 0.01117

–7 0.01855 0.01877 0.01887 0.01892 0.01891 0.01867 0.01817 0.01670 0.01485 0.0129 0.01115 0.00954


APPENDIX B

REFERENCES FOR HIGH-ENERGY SOURCES NOT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE AND WITHOUT CONSENSUS DATASETS

This appendix includes sources for which consensus datasets have not been produced. These sources are no longer commercially available as of January 2010. The aim is to guide users still using them in the clinic and in the case of retrospective dosimetry trials. Any manipulation of these datasets is the responsibility of the individual user or company.

B.1. LDR-HDR-PDR 192Ir Platinum-clad seed

These sources were manufactured by Alpha-Omega Services, Inc. (Bellflower, CA) and could be obtained equidistantly spaced in nylon ribbons for interstitial implantation. The source is 3 mm long and 0.5 mm in diameter. The construction incorporates a 0.3 mm diameter core of 10% Ir and 90% Pt surrounded by a 0.1 mm thick cladding of Pt. The dose distribution of this seed was studied by Thomason and Higgins[180] with TLD measurements along the transverse axis. In a second publication, Thomason et al.[182] made TLD measurements and performed MC calculations in an

unbounded liquid water phantom to produce dose distribution D(r, ) tables. In three separate publications, Mainegra et al.[178,179] and Capote et al.[177] gave TG-43 dosimetry parameters for this source. Radial dose functions were obtained for a 20 cm high and 20 cm in diameter cylindrical phantom. The absorbed dose distribution at close distances required in intravascular brachytherapy applications taking into account the electron emission was studied by Patel et al.[196] for this source. Ballester et al.[172] presented dosimetric results for this source using MC methods. The simulated phantom was a 40 cm radius sphere. TG-43 parameters and a 2D rectangular dose rate table (away-along table) were given. Data were obtained under full-scatter conditions and for an extended range, with higher-spatial resolution in high-dose gradient areas.

Models ICW.4040 to IICW.4300, IICW.3040 to IICW.3300, IIRF.2, IIREC.1

These are wires 0.5 mm and 0.6 mm in total diameter, encapsulated with 0.1 mm Pt, with the same composition as that of the 0.3 mm diameter wires. The ICW series sources were manufactured by Amersham (UK); the 0.6 mm diameter wires may be single pins 7.3 cm in length (Models ICW.4040 to ICW.4300) or double hairpins 13.1 cm in length (Models ICW.3040 to ICW.3300). Different models cover a range of nominal reference kerma in air. The IRF series sources were manufactured by CIS Bio International (France). These take the form of 0.5 mm diameter wires (IRF.2, 14 cm long), single pins (Models IREC.1, 3 cm long, and IREL.1, 5 cm long), or double length hairpins (Models IREC.1, 7.2 cm long, and IREL.1, 11.2 cm long). Pérez-Calatayud et al.[187] presented dose rate tables in water in rectangular coordinates for sources 1 cm and 5 cm in length,

120 HEBD report obtained by MC methods. The data are presented for 0° 90° because the sources are symmetrical. TG-43 dose parameters are included for these two lengths. Attenuation coefficients to be used with Sievert dose calculation models are provided, minimizing the differences with respect to MC calculations and showing the points where significant deviations exist. The maximum differences between the dose rate tables for wires of diameter 0.3 mm, 0.5 mm, and 0.6 mm are less than 2%, and occur at distances closer than 3 mm from the source (D. Granero, private communication).

VariSource classic

This source was used in the Varian HDR afterloading system. It had an active length of 10 mm, active diameter of 0.35 mm, total diameter of 0.61 mm, distance from active end to tip of 1 mm, and nitinol encapsulation. Meigooni et al.[197] presented an experimental study for this source using LiF TLD chips and radiochromic film. Wang and Sloboda[86] presented complete MC-derived dose rate tables in water in away-along tables up to 10 cm perpendicular to and along the source. The

data are presented for 0° 180°. TG-43 dose parameters are included. A 30 cm diameter sphere was used in the simulations. Karaiskos et al.[198] presented MC results for TG-43 parameters and functions. A spherical water phantom 30 cm in diameter was used in the simulations. Results are in agreement with previous studies in the literature. Angelopoulos et al.[170] used the MC method to obtain TG-43 dose parameters for this source, and compared it with the new Varian source. Lliso et al.[199,200] proposed some analytical expressions to be used to represent TG-43 dose parameters, thereby avoiding the use of tables for a set of HDR-PDR sources, including this Varian source. Wang and Li[27] studied the dose rate distribution with MC methods up to radial distances of 1 cm, accounting for the charged particle nonequilibrium and beta particle contribution, for intravascular treatment planning applications.

Nucletron PDR old design

This source was used in the microSelectron PDR afterloading system (Nucletron). It has a 0.6 mm active length, 0.6 mm active diameter, 1.1 mm total diameter, 0.55 mm distance from active end to tip, and stainless steel encapsulation. Williamson and Li[47] used MC to obtain dose rate tables in water in a rectangular coordinate table, up to 7 cm perpendicular to and along the source, both above and below the transverse plane, along with TG-43 dose parameters. A 30 cm diameter water sphere was used in the simulations.

B.2 LDR 137Cs Pellet

These sources can be configured in user-programmable trains consisting of active and inactive pellets in the Selectron-LDR (Nucletron) remote afterloading system. They are spherical in shape with active diameter 1.5 mm and external diameter 2.5 mm, and are encapsulated with stainless steel.


Pérez-Calatayud et al.[201] presented a one-dimensional dose rate table in water, up to 10 cm away from the source, normalized to 1 U, obtained by MC in a 40 cm high and 40 cm in diameter water cylinder phantom. TG-43 parameters are included, and a polynomial correction replacing Meisberger’s one is proposed for use with the theoretical point source model. CSM1

This source was manufactured by CIS Bio International (France). It was used in the Curietron afterloader (E&Z BEBIG). It has a total length of 3.5 mm, active length of 1.6 mm, internal diameter of 0.8 mm and external diameter of 1.75 mm. One end is flat and the other end is rounded; the active length is not centered with respect to the total length. The capsule is stainless steel. Granero et al.[202] obtained TG-43 parameters for this source from MC simulations, together with an away-along dose

rate table. Dose data were presented for 0° 180° because of source asymmetry. The simulation was done in a 40 cm high and 40 cm in diameter water cylinder phantom. CSM2

This source was manufactured by CIS Bio International (France). It was used for manual afterloading and in the Curietron afterloader (E&Z BEBIG). It has the same dimensions and composition materials as model CSM3 (manufactured by E&Z BEBIG, section A.4.1) but with the central seed inactive. Williamson[141] presented a dose rate table in water in rectangular coordinates, up to 5 cm perpendicular to and along the source, normalized to 1 U, obtained by the MC method.

The data are presented for 0° 90° because the source was assumed to be symmetrical. Liu et al.[190] produced TG-43 datasets using the Sievert algorithm with effective active length and attenuation coefficients obtained in the previous work of Williamson. The source is considered to be linear with the radioactivity uniformly distributed along its central axis. Pérez-Calatayud et al.[191] produced TG-43 datasets and an away-along dose rate table using MC, where source asymmetries were considered. Also, the radial range of tables was extended and the angular resolution in the anisotropy function was increased to include angles close to the source ends. The phantom was a 40 cm radius sphere. CSM2a

This source was manufactured by CIS Bio International (France) and was used at the top in vaginal dome applicators designed for manual afterloading. It has the same dimensions and composition materials as model CSM3 (section A.4.1) but with the eyelet end seed inactive. Pérez-Calatayud et al.[203] presented a dose rate table in water in rectangular coordinates, up to 10 cm perpendicular to and along the source, normalized to 1 U, obtained by MC methods. The data are

presented for 0° 180° because the source is asymmetrical. The phantom was a cylinder 40 cm high and 40 cm in diameter.

122 HEBD report CDCS-J

This source was manufactured by Amersham (UK) and used in manual and automatic afterloading systems. It has a total length of 20 mm, active length of 13.5 mm, internal diameter of 1.65 mm, and external diameter of 2.65 mm. Both ends are flat, one of them with an eyelet. The capsule is stainless steel. Williamson[141] presented a dose rate table in water in rectangular coordinates, up to 7 cm away from and along the source, normalized to 1 U, obtained by the MC

method, with data for 0° 180° due to the asymmetry. The phantom simulated was a liquid

water sphere with R = 15 cm which does not provide full scatter conditions within 1% for r 5 cm. Effective active length and attenuation coefficients to be used with a Sievert dose calculation model are provided as well, to minimize the differences relative to MC calculations, showing the points where deviations are significant. Liu et al.[190] produced TG-43 datasets using the Sievert algorithm with effective active length and attenuation coefficients obtained in the previous work of Williamson.[141]

6500/6D6C

This source was manufactured by 3M. It has a total length of 20 mm, active length of 13.8 mm, internal diameter of 1.19 mm and external diameter of 3.05 mm. Both ends are flat, one of them with an eyelet. The capsule is stainless steel. In Williamson[141] this source model was studied, and a detailed 2D dose rate distribution was obtained with MC methods. It takes into account the asymmetry of the source, and a spherical water phantom of 15 cm radius was used. Liu et al.[190] have also studied this source to obtain TG-43 functions and parameters, but supposing the source to be symmetrical. They used the Sievert summation method with the effective parameters calculated by Williamson in the previously cited work. Because the calculation of the 2D dose rate distribution using the TG-43 parameters given in this work presents discrepancies up to 7% close to the longitudinal axis with respect to the data given by Williamson for this source, Pérez-Calatayud et al.[70] studied this source using the MC method, and presented dose rate distributions following the TG-43 formalism and in a 2D rectangular dose rate table. The simulated phantom was a 40 cm radius, liquid water sphere. With respect to the previous study the data radial range and angular grid resolution were increased, and TG-43 data are now consistent with the away-along dose rate table and in good agreement with the Williamson data. Gold-matrix series 67-800

This source was manufactured by Radiation Therapy Resources. It has a total length of 20.9 mm, active length of 15 mm, internal diameter of 0.8 mm, and external diameter of 3 mm. As for the previous source model, this source was first studied by Williamson[141] by means of MC methods, giving a 2D away-along dose rate distribution in an unbounded liquid water phantom, but making the approximation that the source is symmetrical with respect to its long axis. Liu et al.[190] have also studied this source to obtain TG-43 functions and parameters. They used the Sievert summation method with the effective parameters calculated by Williamson in the previously cited work. The 2D away-along dose rate table calculated using the TG-43 parameters obtained by Liu et al., does not reproduce the corresponding table calculated by Williamson within the required


accuracy (differences up to 6% exist between the two calculations). Perez-Calatayud et al.[70] studied this source using the MC method, and presented dose rate distributions following the TG-43 formalism and in a 2D rectangular dose rate table. The simulated phantom was a 40 cm radius, liquid water sphere. With respect to the previous study, the data radial range and the angular grid resolution were increased, and TG-43 data are now consistent with the away-along dose rate table and in good agreement with the Williamson data. CDCS-M

This source was manufactured by Amersham (UK) and used in manual and automatic afterloading systems. It has a total length of 21 mm, active length of 15 mm, internal diameter of 1.3 mm, and external diameter of 2.3 mm. Both ends are flat, one of them with an eyelet. The capsule is stainless steel. Casal et al.[63] presented a dose rate table in water in rectangular

coordinates, obtained by the MC method, with data for 0° 180° due to the design asymmetry. TG-43 parameters were also included. Differences with the CDCS-J model were observed, being more significant at distances close to the source. The phantom used in the simulation was a cylinder of water 40 cm high and 40 cm in diameter. CDC.K1-K3 and CDC.K4

The CDC.K1-K3 source was manufactured by Amersham (UK) and used in manual and automatic afterloading systems. It has a total length of 8 mm, active length of 2.1 mm, internal diameter of 2.1 mm, and external diameter of 3.2 mm. Both ends are rounded; the active volume is a sphere. The source is encapsuled in stainless steel. The CDC.K4 source was used in manual and automatic afterloading systems. It has a total length of 8 mm, active length of 4.2 mm, internal diameter of 2.1 mm, and external diameter of 3.2 mm. Both ends are rounded; the active volumes are two spheres. Diffey and Klevenhagen[204] did a TLD study of these sources. In this publication the ratio of absolute dose at different angles and the absolute dose along the transverse axis were measured at distances between 1 cm and 5 cm from the source. Pérez-Calatayud et al.[68] presented for both source models a dose rate table in water in rectangular coordinates, obtained by MC

methods. The data are presented for 0° 90° due to the symmetry. TG-43 parameters are included. The simulated phantom consisted of a cylinder of water 40 cm high and 40 cm in diameter. CDC 12015 to CDC 12035

These sources were manufactured by Amersham (UK) and used in manual and remote-controlled afterloading systems. They have a total length of 5 mm, internal diameter of 1.1 mm and external diameter of 1.8 mm. The active volume is composed of one or three spheres, each 1.1 mm in diameter. The capsule is stainless steel. Pérez-Calatayud et al.[68] presented a dose rate table in water

in rectangular coordinates obtained by MC methods. The data are presented for 0° 90° due to the symmetry. TG-43 parameters are also included. The phantom used in simulations was a cylinder of water 40 cm high and 40 cm in diameter.

124 HEBD report CDC.G and CDC.H

These sources were manufactured by Amersham (UK). They have a total length of 20 mm, active length of 13.5 mm, Pt capsule thickness of 0.5 mm, and active diameters of 3.05 mm (CDC.G) and 2.05 mm (CDC.H). Breitman[205] presented a dose rate table in water in rectangular coordinates normalized to 1 mgRaeq using the interval method, which is a simplification of the Sievert integral. In a comparison with experimental data obtained by Klevenhagen,[206] discrepancies are shown near the longitudinal axis. Breitman also presented data for model CDC.A sources from Amersham. These sources were available in different lengths to be used in interstitial techniques prior to the use of iridium wires.

B.3 HDR 60Co Ralstron Type-1, Type-2, and Type-3

These sources were manufactured by Shimazdu Corporation (Japan) and used in the Ralstron

remote afterloader. Their configuration consists of two active pellets (cylinders 1 mm 1 mm) either in contact or 9 mm or 11 mm apart. All three models have a 3 mm external diameter. Papagiannis et al.[10] used MC to obtain the dose rate in water, and reported rectangular coordinate dose rate tables and TG-43 dose parameters. Selvam et al.[207] have reported a systematic error for y = 0.75 cm in the away-along table of Papagiannis et al., for the type 2 source model.


REFERENCES

1. R. Nath, L. L. Anderson, G. Luxton, K. A. Weaver, J. F. Williamson, and A. S. Meigooni. “Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.” Med Phys 22(2):209–234 (1995). Also available as AAPM Report No. 51.

2. M. J. Rivard, B. M. Coursey, L. A. DeWerd, W. F. Hanson, M. S. Huq, G. S. Ibbott, M. G. Mitch, R. Nath, and J. F. Williamson. “Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations.” Med Phys 31(3):633–674 (2004). Also available as AAPM Report No. 84.3.

3. M. J. Rivard, W. M. Butler, L. A. DeWerd, M. S. Huq, G. S. Ibbott, A. S. Meigooni, C. S. Melhus, M. G. Mitch, R. Nath, and J. F. Williamson. “Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report.” Med Phys 34(6):2187–2205 (2007). Also available as AAPM Report No. 84S.

4. M. J. Rivard, W. M. Butler, L. A. DeWerd, G. S. Ibbott, A. S. Meigooni, C. S. Melhus, M. G. Mitch, and R. Nath. “Erratum: ‘Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations’.” Med Phys 37:2396 (2010).

5. D. C. Medich, M. A. Tries, and J. J. Munro, 2nd. “Monte Carlo characterization of an ytterbium-169 high dose rate brachytherapy source with analysis of statistical uncertainty.” Med Phys 33(1):163–172 (2006).

6. D. C. Medich and J. J. Munro, 3rd. “Dependence of Yb-169 absorbed dose energy correction factors on self-attenuation in source material and photon buildup in water.” Med Phys 37(5):2135–2144 (2010).

7. F. Ballester, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, J. L. Venselaar, and M. J. Rivard. “Study of encapsulated 170Tm sources for their potential use in brachytherapy.” Med Phys 37(4):1629–1637 (2010).

8. S. A. Enger, M. D’Amours, and L. Beaulieu. “Modeling a hypothetical 170Tm source for brachytherapy applications.” Med Phys 38(10):5307–5310 (2011).

9. J. J. Munro III, D. C. Medich, and S. Mutyala. “Intraoperative high-dose-rate brachytherapy using 170thulium radiation sources.” Brachytherapy 7(2):160 (2008).

10. P. Papagiannis, A. Angelopoulos, E. Pantelis, L. Sakelliou, P. Karaiskos, and Y. Shimizu.“Monte Carlo dosimetry of 60Co HDR brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 30(4):712–721 (2003).

11. F. Ballester, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, E. Casal, S. Agramunt, and R. Cases. “Monte Carlo dosimetric study of the BEBIG Co-60 HDR source.” Phys Med Biol 50(21):N309–316 (2005).

12. D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Ballester. “Technical note: Dosimetric study of a new Co-60 source used in brachytherapy.” Med Phys 34(9):3485–3488 (2007).

13. R. Nath, L. L. Anderson, J. A. Meli, A. J. Olch, J. A. Stitt, and J. F. Williamson. “Code of practice for brachytherapy physics: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 56. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.” Med Phys 24(10):1557–1598 (1997). Also available as AAPM Report No. 59.

14. L. A. DeWerd, G. S. Ibbott, A. S. Meigooni, M. G. Mitch, M. J. Rivard, K. E. Stump, B. R. Thomadsen, and J. L. Venselaar. “A dosimetric uncertainty analysis for photon-emitting brachytherapy sources: report of AAPM Task Group No. 138 and GEC-ESTRO.” Med Phys 38(2):782–801 (2011). Also available as AAPM Report No. 138.

15. H. D. Kubo, G. P. Glasgow, T. D. Pethel, B. R. Thomadsen, and J. F. Williamson. “High dose-rate brachytherapy treatment delivery: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 59.” Med Phys 25(4):375–403 (1998). Also available as AAPM Report No. 61.

126 HEBD report 16. J. Williamson, B. M. Coursey, L. A. DeWerd, W. F. Hanson, and R. Nath. “Dosimetric prerequisites for

routine clinical use of new low energy photon interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Low Energy Interstitial Brachytherapy Dosimetry.” Med Phys 25(12):2269–2270 (1998).

17. Z. Li, R. K. Das, L. A. DeWerd, G. S. Ibbott, A. S. Meigooni, J. Pérez-Calatayud, M. J. Rivard, R. S. Sloboda, and J. F. Williamson. “Dosimetric prerequisites for routine clinical use of photon emitting brachytherapy sources with average energy higher than 50 keV.” Med Phys 34(1):37–40 (2007).

18. R. Nath, H. Amols, C. Coffey, D. Duggan, S. Jani, Z. Li, M. Schell, C. Soares, J. Whiting, P. E. Cole, I. Crocker, and R. Schwartz. “Intravascular brachytherapy physics: report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group no. 60. American Association of Physicists in Medicine.” Med Phys 26(2):119–152 (1999).

19. S. T. Chiu-Tsao, D. R. Schaart, C. G. Soares, and R. Nath. “Dose calculation formalisms and consensus dosimetry parameters for intravascular brachytherapy dosimetry: recommendations of the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee Task Group No. 149.” Med Phys 34(11):4126–4157 (2007). Also available as AAPM Report No. 149.

20. NUDAT 2.6. National Nuclear Data Center. Upton, NY: Brookhaven National Laboratory, 2012.

21. D. Baltas, L. Sakelliou, and N. Zamboglou. The Physics of Modern Brachytherapy for Oncology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2007.

22. F. A. Vicini, V. R. Kini, G. Edmundson, G. S. Gustafson, J. Stromberg, and A. Martinez. “A comprehensive review of prostate cancer brachytherapy: defining an optimal technique.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44(3):483–491 (1999).

23. R. J. Yaes. “Late normal tissue injury from permanent interstitial implants.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49(4):1163–1169 (2001).

24. H. Marsiglia, C. Haie-Meder, G. Sasso, G. Mamelle, and A. Gerbaulet. “Brachytherapy for T1-T2 floor-of-the-mouth cancers: the Gustave-Roussy Institute experience.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 52(5):1257–1263 (2002).

25. D. Baltas, P. Karaiskos, P. Papagiannis, L. Sakelliou, E. Loeffler, and N. Zamboglou. “Beta versus gamma dosimetry close to Ir-192 brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 28(9):1875–1882 (2001).

26. R. Nath, N. Yue, and L. Liu. “On the depth of penetration of photons and electrons for intravascular brachytherapy.” Cardiovasc Radiat Med 1(1):72–79 (1999).

27. R. Wang and X. A. Li. “Dose characterization in the near-source region for two high dose rate brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 29(8):1678–1686 (2002).

28. F. Ballester, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, C. S. Melhus, and M. J. Rivard. “Evaluation of high-energy brachytherapy source electronic disequilibrium and dose from emitted electrons.” Med Phys 36(9):4250–4256 (2009).

29. J. Pérez-Calatayud, D. Granero, and F. Ballester. “Phantom size in brachytherapy source dosimetric studies.” Med Phys 31(7):2075 (2004).

30. C. S. Melhus and M. J. Rivard. “Approaches to calculating AAPM TG-43 brachytherapy dosimetry parameters for 137Cs, 125I, 192Ir, 103Pd, and 169Yb sources.” Med Phys 33(6):1729–1737 (2006).

31. D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, M. Pujades-Claumarchirant, F. Ballester, C. S. Melhus, and M. J. Rivard. “Equivalent phantom sizes and shapes for brachytherapy dosimetric studies of 192Ir and 137Cs.” Med Phys 35(11):4872 (2008).


32. B. R. Thomadsen, J. F. Williamson, M. J. Rivard, and A. S. Meigooni. “Anniversary paper: past and current issues, and trends in brachytherapy physics.” Med Phys 35(10):4708–4723 (2008).

33. M. J. Rivard, J. L. Venselaar, and L. Beaulieu. “The evolution of brachytherapy treatment planning.” Med Phys 36(6):2136–2153 (2009).

34. M. J. Rivard, L. Beaulieu, and F. Mourtada. “Enhancements to commissioning techniques and quality assurance of brachytherapy treatment planning systems that use model-based dose calculation algorithms.” Med Phys 37(6):2645–2658 (2010).

35. H. Meertens and R. van der Laarse. “Screens in ovoids of a Selectron cervix applicator.” Radiother Oncol 3(1):69–80 (1985).

36. D. Verellen, W. De Neve, F. Van den Heuvel, G. Storme, V. Coen, and M. Coghe. “On the determination of the effective transmission factor for stainless steel ovoid shielding segments and estimation of their shielding efficacy for the clinical situation.” Med Phys 21(11):1677–1684 (1994).

37. X. Yan, E. Poon, B. Reniers, T. Vuong, and F. Verhaegen. “Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for colorectal cancer brachytherapy treatment with a shielded applicator.” Med Phys 35(11):4824–4830 (2008).

38. C. F. Serago, P. V. Houdek, V. Pisciotta, J. G. Schwade, A. A. Abitbol, A. A. Lewin, D. O. Poole, and V. Marcial-Vega. “Scattering effects on the dosimetry of iridium-192.” Med Phys 18(6):1266–1270 (1991).

39. C. A. Mangold, A. Rijnders, D. Georg, E. Van Limbergen, R. Pötter, and D. Huyskens. “Quality control in interstitial brachytherapy of the breast using pulsed dose rate: treatment planning and dose delivery with an Ir-192 afterloading system.” Radiother Oncol 58(1):43–51 (2001).

40. P. Wallner, D. Arthur, H. Bartelink, J. Connolly, G. Edmundson, A. Giuliano, N. Goldstein, J. Hevezi, T. Julian, R. Kuske, A. Lichter, B. McCormick, R. Orecchia, L. Pierce, S. Powell, L. Solin, F. Vicini, T. Whelan, J. Wong, and C. N. Coleman. “Workshop on partial breast irradiation: state of the art and the science, Bethesda, MD, December 8–10, 2002.” J Natl Cancer Inst 96(3):175–184 (2004).

41. J. A. Raffi, S. D. Davis, C. G. Hammer, J. A. Micka, K. A. Kunugi, J. E. Musgrove, J. W. Winston, Jr., T. J. Ricci-Ott, and L. A. DeWerd. “Determination of exit skin dose for 192Ir intracavitary accelerated partial breast irradiation with thermoluminescent dosimeters.” Med Phys 37(6):2693–2702 (2010).

42. G. Lymperopoulou, P. Papagiannis, A. Angelopoulos, P. Karaiskos, E. Georgiou, and D. Baltas. “A dosimetric comparison of 169Yb and 192Ir for HDR brachytherapy of the breast, accounting for the effect of finite patient dimensions and tissue inhomogeneities.” Med Phys 33(12):4583–4589 (2006).

43. E. Pantelis, P. Papagiannis, P. Karaiskos, A. Angelopoulos, G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Baltas, N. Zamboglou, and L. Sakelliou. “The effect of finite patient dimensions and tissue inhomogeneities on dosimetry planning of 192Ir HDR breast brachytherapy: a Monte Carlo dose verification study.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61(5):1596–1602 (2005).

44. S. Raina, J. S. Avadhani, M. Oh, H. K. Malhotra, W. Jaggernauth, M. R. Kuettel, and M. B. Podgorsak. “Quantifying IOHDR brachytherapy underdosage resulting from an incomplete scatter environment.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61(5):1582–1586 (2005).

45. W. H. Ellett. “Specific absorbed fractions for photon point sources within a scattering medium.” Phys Med Biol 14(4):615–626 (1969).

46. J. F. Williamson. “Comparison of measured and calculated dose rates in water near I-125 and Ir-192 seeds.” Med Phys 18(4):776–786 (1991).

47. J. F. Williamson and Z. Li. “Monte Carlo aided dosimetry of the microselectron pulsed and high dose-rate 192Ir sources.” Med Phys 22(6):809–819 (1995).

128 HEBD report 48. J. L. Venselaar, P. H. van der Giessen, and W. J. Dries. “Measurement and calculation of the dose at large

distances from brachytherapy sources: Cs-137, Ir-192, and Co-60.” Med Phys 23(4):537–543 (1996).

49. P. Karaiskos, A. Angelopoulos, L. Sakelliou, P. Sandilos, C. Antypas, L. Vlachos, and E. Koutsouveli. “Monte Carlo and TLD dosimetry of an 192Ir high dose-rate brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 25(10):1975–1984 (1998).

50. G. Herbold, G. Hartmann, H. Treuer, and W. J. Lorenz. “Monte Carlo calculation of energy build-up factors in the range from 15 keV to 100 keV, with special reference to the dosimetry of 125I seeds.” Phys Med Biol 33:1037–1053 (1988).

51. A. Angelopoulos, A. Perris, K. Sakellariou, L. Sakelliou, K. Sarigiannis, and G. Zarris. “Accurate Monte Carlo calculations of the combined attenuation and build-up factors, for energies (20-1500 keV) and distances (0-10 cm) relevant in brachytherapy.” Phys Med Biol 36(6):763–778 (1991).

52. L. Sakelliou, K. Sakellariou, K. Sarigiannis, A. Angelopoulos, A. Perris, and G. Zarris. “Dose rate distributions around 60Co, 137Cs, 198Au, 192Ir, 241Am, 125I (models 6702 and 6711) brachytherapy sources and the nuclide 99Tcm.” Phys Med Biol 37(10):1859–1872 (1992).

53. T. B. Tiourina, W. J. Dries, and P. M. van der Linden. “Measurements and calculations of the absorbed dose distribution around a 60Co source.” Med Phys 22(5):549–554 (1995).

54. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Baltas, P. Karaiskos, E. Pantelis, P. Papagiannis, and L. Sakelliou. “An analytical dosimetry model as a step towards accounting for inhomogeneities and bounded geometries in 192Ir brachytherapy treatment planning.” Phys Med Biol 48(11):1625–1647 (2003).

55. P. Karaiskos, A. Angelopoulos, E. Pantelis, P. Papagiannis, L. Sakelliou, E. Kouwenhoven, and D. Baltas. “Monte Carlo dosimetry of a new 192Ir pulsed dose rate brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 30(1):9–16 (2003).

56. E. Poon and F. Verhaegen. “Development of a scatter correction technique and its application to HDR 192Ir multicatheter breast brachytherapy.” Med Phys 36(8):3703–3713 (2009).

57. J. F. Williamson. “Monte Carlo–based dose-rate tables for the Amersham CDCS.J and 3M model 6500 137Cs tubes.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 41(4):959–970 (1998).

58. R. E. Wallace and J. J. Fan. “Report on the dosimetry of a new design 125Iodine brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 26:1925–1931 (1999).

59. J. F. Williamson. “Monte Carlo modeling of the transverse-axis dose distribution of the model 200 103Pd interstitial brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 27:643–654 (2000).

60. A. S. Meigooni, S. A. Dini, K. Sowards, J. L. Hayes, and A. Al-Otoom. “Experimental determination of the TG-43 dosimetric characteristics of EchoSeed model 6733 I25I brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 29(6):939–942 (2002).

61. A. S. Meigooni, J. L. Hayes, H. Zhang, and K. Sowards. “Experimental and theoretical determination of dosimetric characteristics of IsoAid ADVANTAGE 125I brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 29(9):2152–2158 (2002).

62. F. Ballester, J. L. Lluch, Y. Limami, M. A. Serrano, E. Casal, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Lliso. “A Monte Carlo investigation of the dosimetric characteristics of the CSM11 137Cs source from CIS.” Med Phys 27(9):2182–2189 (2000).

63. E. Casal, F. Ballester, J. L. Lluch, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Lliso. “Monte Carlo calculations of dose rate distributions around the Amersham CDCS-M-type 137Cs source.” Med Phys 27(1):132–140 (2000).


64. F. Ballester, J. Pérez-Calatayud, V. Puchades, J. L. Lluch, M. A. Serrano-Andrés, Y. Limami, F. Lliso, and E. Casal. “Monte Carlo dosimetry of the Buchler high dose rate 192Ir source.” Phys Med Biol 46(3):N79–90 (2001).

65. F. Ballester, V. Puchades, J. L. Lluch, M. A. Serrano-Andrés, Y. Limami, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and E. Casal. “Technical note: Monte-Carlo dosimetry of the HDR 12i and Plus 192Ir sources.” Med Phys 28(12):2586–2591 (2001).

66. J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, Y. Limami, L. A. DeWerd, and K. Nelson. “Assessment of the linear reference air kerma rate of 192Ir wires.” Phys Med Biol 46(8):2201–2207 (2001).

67. J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, M. A. Serrano-Andrés, J. L. Lluch, V. Puchades, Y. Limami, and E. Casal. “Dosimetric characteristics of the CDC-type miniature cylindrical 137Cs brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 29(4):538–543 (2002).

68. J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, J. L. Lluch, M. A. Serrano-Andrés, E. Casa, V. Puchades, and Y. Limami. “Monte Carlo calculation of dose rate distributions around the Walstam CDC.K-type 137Cs sources.” Phys Med Biol 46(7):2029–2040 (2001).

69. J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, M. A. Serrano-Andrés, V. Puchades, J. L. Lluch, Y. Limami, and F. Casal. “Dosimetry characteristics of the Plus and 12i Gammamed PDR 192Ir sources.” Med Phys 28(12):2576–2585 (2001).

70. J. Pérez-Calatayud, D. Granero, F. Ballester, E. Casal, R. Cases, and S. Agramunt. “Technical note: Monte Carlo derivation of TG-43 dosimetric parameters for radiation therapy resources and 3M Cs-137 sources.” Med Phys 32(8):2464–2470 (2005).

71. D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Ballester. “Monte Carlo calculation of the TG-43 dosimetric parameters of a new BEBIG Ir-192 HDR source.” Radiother Oncol 76(1):79–85 (2005).

72. F. Ballester, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, E. Casal, and V. Puchades. “Monte Carlo dosimetric study of Best Industries and Alpha Omega Ir-192 brachytherapy seeds.” Med Phys 31(12):3298–3305 (2004).

73. K. R. Russell, A. K. Tedgren, and A. Ahnesjö. “Brachytherapy source characterization for improved dose calculations using primary and scatter dose separation.” Med Phys 32(9):2739–2752 (2005).

74. C. Melchert, P. Kohr, and R. Schmidt. “Calculation of dose decrease in a finite phantom of a 192Ir point source.” Med Phys 34(10):3943–3950 (2007).

75. R. M. Sievert. “Die -Strahlungsintensitat an der Oberflache und in der nachsten Umgebug von Radiumnadeln.” Acta Radiologica 11:249–301 (1930). [German].

76. J. F. Corbett, J. J. Jezioranski, J. Crook, T. Tran, and I. W. Yeung. “The effect of seed orientation deviations on the quality of 125I prostate implants.” Phys Med Biol 46(11):2785–2800 (2001).

77. O. Chibani, J. F. Williamson, and D. Todor. “Dosimetric effects of seed anisotropy and interseed attenuation for 103Pd and 125I prostate implants.” Med Phys 32(8):2557–2566 (2005).

78. G. Leclerc, M. C. Lavallée, D. Tubic, J. Métivier, E. Vigneault, and L. Beaulieu. “Idealized line source configuration for permanent 125I prostate implants.” Radiother Oncol 72(2):213–220 (2004).

79. M. C. Pujades-Claumarchirant, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, C. S. Melhus, and M. J. Rivard. “Evaluation of interpolation methods for TG-43 dosimetric parameters based on comparison with Monte Carlo data for high-energy brachytherapy sources.” J Contemp Brachyther 2(1):28–32 (2010).

80. A. S. Meigooni, S. B. Awan, V. Rachabatthula, and R. A. Koona. “Treatment planning consideration for prostate implants with the new linear RadioCoil 103Pd brachytherapy source.” J Appl Clin Med Phys 6(3):23–36 (2005).

130 HEBD report 81. D. R. Schaart, M. C. Clarijs, and A. J. Bos. “On the applicability of the AAPM TG-60/TG-43 dose calculation

formalism to intravascular line sources: proposal for an adapted formalism.” Med Phys 28(4):638–653 (2001).

82. R. van der Laarse, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, A. S. Meigooni, and F. Ballester. “Dosimetric characterization of Ir-192 LDR elongated sources.” Med Phys 35(3):1154–1161 (2008).

83. S. B. Awan, A. S. Meigooni, R. Mokhberiosgouei, and M. Hussain. “Evaluation of TG-43 recommended 2D-anisotropy function for elongated brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 33(11):4271–4279 (2006).

84. N. S. Patel, S. T. Chiu-Tsao, P. Fan, H. S. Tsao, S. F. Liprie, and L. B. Harrison. “The use of cylindrical coordinates for treatment planning parameters of an elongated 192Ir source.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51(4):1093–1102 (2001).

85. S. B. Awan, S. A. Dini, M. Hussain, D. Soleimani-Meigooni, and A. S. Meigooni. “Cylindrical coordinate based TG-43U1 parameters for dose calculation around elongated brachytherapy sources.” J Appl Clin Med Phys 9(2):123–142 (2008).

86. R. Wang and R. S. Sloboda. “Influence of source geometry and materials on the transverse axis dosimetry of 192Ir brachytherapy sources.” Phys Med Biol 43(1):37–48 (1998).

87. M. J. Rivard. “Refinements to the geometry factor used in the AAPM Task Group Report No. 43 necessary for brachytherapy dosimetry calculations.” Med Phys 26:2445–2450 (1999).

88. P. Karaiskos, P. Papagiannis, A. Angelopoulos, L. Sakelliou, D. Baltas, P. Sandilos, and L. Vlachos. “Dosimetry of 192Ir wires for LDR interstitial brachytherapy following the AAPM TG-43 dosimetric formalism.” Med Phys 28(2):156–166 (2001).

89. P. Karaiskos, L. Sakelliou, P. Sandilos, and L. Vlachas. “Limitations of the point and line source approximations for the determination of geometry factors around brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 27(1):124–128 (2000).

90. P. Papagiannis, A. Angelopoulos, E. Pantelis, L. Sakelliou, D. Baltas, P. Karaiskos, P. Sandilos, and L. Vlachos. “Dosimetry comparison of 192Ir sources.” Med Phys 29(10):2239–2246 (2002).

91. Z. Chen and R. Nath. “Dose rate constant and energy spectrum of interstitial brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 28(1):86–96 (2001).

92. L. L. Meisberger, R. J. Keller, and R. J. Shalek. “The effective attenuation in water of the gamma rays of gold 198, iridium 192, cesium 137, radium 226, and cobalt 60.” Radiology 90:953–957 (1968).

93. G. M. Daskalov, M. Löffler, and J. F. Williamson. “Monte Carlo-aided dosimetry of a new high dose-rate brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 25(11):2200–2208 (1998).

94. A. S. Kirov, A. S. Meigooni, Y. Zhu, R. K. Valicenti, and J. F. Williamson. “Quantitative verification of 192Ir PDR and HDR source structure by pin–hole autoradiography.” Med Phys 22(11 Pt 1):1753–1757 (1995).

95. P. Kohr and F. A. Siebert. “Quality assurance of brachytherapy afterloaders using a multi-slit phantom.” Phys Med Biol 52(17):N387–391 (2007).

96. M. J. Rivard, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Ballester. “Influence of photon energy spectra from brachytherapy sources on Monte Carlo simulations of kerma and dose rates in water and air.” Med Phys 37(2):869–876 (2010).

97. J. F. Williamson. “Brachytherapy technology and physics practice since 1950: a half-century of progress.” Phys Med Biol 51(13):R303–325 (2006).

98. W. J. Meredith, D. Greene, and K. Kawashima. “The attenuation and scattering in a phantom of gamma rays from some radionuclides used in mould and interstitial gamma-ray therapy.” Br J Radiol 39(460):280–286 (1966).


99. J. F. Williamson and M. J. Rivard. “Quantitative Dosimetry Methods for Brachytherapy” in Brachytherapy Physics: Second Edition. B. R. Thomadsen, M. J. Rivard, and W. M. Butler (eds.). Joint AAPM/American Brachytherapy Society Sumer School proceedings. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 31. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 233–294, 2005.

100. J. F. Williamson and M. J. Rivard. “Thermoluminescent Detector and Monte Carlo Techniques for Reference-Quality Brachytherapy Dosimetry” in Clinical Dosimetry Measurements in Radiotherapy. D. W. O. Rogers and J. E. Cygler (eds.) AAPM 2009 Summer School proceedings. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No, 34. Madison, WI:Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 437–499, 2009.

101. J. F. Williamson, H. Perera, Z. Li, and W. R. Lutz. “Comparison of calculated and measured heterogeneity correction factors for 125I, 137Cs, and 192Ir brachytherapy sources near localized heterogeneities.” Med Phys 20(1):209–222 (1993).

102. A. Kirov, J. F. Williamson, A. S. Meigooni, and Y. Zhu. “TLD, diode and Monte Carlo dosimetry of an 192Ir source for high dose-rate brachytherapy.” Phys Med Biol 40(12):2015–2036 (1995).

103. J. A. Meli, A. S. Meigooni, and R. Nath. “On the choice of phantom material for the dosimetry of 192Ir sources.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 14(3):587–594 (1988).

104. T. D. Bohm, D. W. Pearson, and R. K. Das. “Measurements and Monte Carlo calculations to determine the absolute detector response of radiochromic film for brachytherapy dosimetry.” Med Phys 28(2):142–146 (2001).

105. S. T. Chiu-Tsao, T. Duckworth, C. Zhang, N. S. Patel, C. Y. Hsiung, L. Wang, J. A. Shih, and L. B. Harrison. “Dose response characteristics of new models of GAFCHROMIC films: dependence on densitometer light source and radiation energy.” Med Phys 31(9):2501–2508 (2004).

106. P. J. Muench, A. S. Meigooni, R. Nath, and W. L. McLaughlin. “Photon energy dependence of the sensitivity of radiochromic film and comparison with silver halide film and LiF TLDs used for brachytherapy dosimetry.” Med Phys 18(4):769–775 (1991).

107. S. T. Chiu-Tsao, A. de la Zerda, J. Lin, and J. H. Kim. “High-sensitivity GafChromic film dosimetry for 125I seed.” Med Phys 21(5):651–657 (1994).

108. S. A. Dini, R. A. Koona, J. R. Ashburn, and A. S. Meigooni. “Dosimetric evaluation of GAFCHROMIC XR type T and XR type R films.” J Appl Clin Med Phys 6(1):114–134 (2005).

109. P. Lindsay, J. Battista, and J. Van Dyk. “The effect of seed anisotropy on brachytherapy dose distributions using 125I and 103Pd.” Med Phys 28(3):336–345 (2001).

110. B. Arjomandy, R. Tailor, A. Anand, N. Sahoo, M. Gillin, K. Prado, and M. Vicic. “Energy dependence and dose response of Gafchromic EBT2 film over a wide range of photon, electron, and proton beam energies.” Med Phys 37(5):1942–1947 (2010).

111. S. Devic, S. Aldelaijan, H. Mohammed, N. Tomic, L. H. Liang, F. DeBlois, and J. Seuntjens. “Absorption spectra time evolution of EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC film.” Med Phys 37(5):2207–2214 (2010).

112. S. Aldelaijan, S. Devic, H. Mohammed, N. Tomic, L. H. Liang, F. DeBlois, and J. Seuntjens. “Evaluation of EBT-2 model GAFCHROMIC film performance in water.” Med Phys 37(7):3687–3693 (2010).

113. S. T. Chiu-Tsao, Y. Ho, R. Shankar, L. Wang, and L. B. Harrison. “Energy dependence of response of new high sensitivity radiochromic films for megavoltage and kilovoltage radiation energies.” Med Phys 32(11):3350–3354 (2005).

114. C. Richter, J. Pawelke, L. Karsch, and J. Woithe. “Energy dependence of EBT-1 radiochromic film response for photon (10 kvp-15 MVp) and electron beams (6-18 MeV) readout by a flatbed scanner.” Med Phys 36(12):5506–5514 (2009).

132 HEBD report 115. J. F. Dempsey, D. A. Low, S. Mutic, J. Markman, A. S. Kirov, G. H. Nussbaum, and J. F. Williamson.

“Validation of a precision radiochromic film dosimetry system for quantitative two-dimensional imaging of acute exposure dose distributions.” Med Phys 27(10):2462–2475 (2000).

116. Y. Le, I. Ali, J. F. Dempsey, and J. F. Williamson. “Prospects for quantitative two-dimensional radiochromic film dosimetry for low dose-rate brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 33(12):4622–4634 (2006).

117. L. A. DeWerd, L. J. Bartol, and S. D. Davis. “Thermoluminescence Dosimetry” in Clinical Dosimetry Measurements in Radiotherapy. D. W. O. Rogers and J.E. Cygler (eds.). AAPM 2009 Summer School proceedings. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 34. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 815–840, 2009.

118. A. Carlsson Tedgren and G. Alm Carlsson. “Influence of phantom material and dimensions on experimental Ir-192 dosimetry.” Med Phys 36(6):2228–2235 (2009).

119. J. F. Williamson and A. S. Meigooni. “Quantitative Dosimetry Methods for Brachytherapy” in Brachytherapy Physics. J. F. Williamson, B. R. Thomadsen, and R. Nath (eds.). AAPM 1994 Summer School proceedings. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 87–134, 1995.

120. A. A. Nunn, S. D. Davis, J. A. Micka, and L. A. DeWerd. “LiF:Mg,Ti TLD response as a function of photon energy for moderately filtered x-ray spectra in the range of 20–250 kVp relative to 60Co.” Med Phys 35(5):1859–1869 (2008).

121. S. D. Davis, C. K. Ross, P. N. Mobit, L. Van der Zwan, W. J. Chase, and K. R. Shortt. “The response of LiF thermoluminescence dosemeters to photon beams in the energy range from 30 kV X rays to 60Co gamma rays.” Radiat Prot Dosimetry 106(1):33–43 (2003).

122. J. G. H. Sutherland and D. W. O. Rogers. “Monte Carlo calculated absorbed-dose energy dependence of EBT and EBT2 film.” Med Phys 37(3):1110–1116 (2010).

123. M. J. Butson, T. Cheung, and P. K. Yu. “Weak energy dependence of EBT gafchromic film dose response in the 50 kVp-10 MVp X-ray range.” Appl Radiat Isot 64(1):60–62 (2006).

124. A. Rink, I. A. Vitkin, and D. A. Jaffray. “Energy dependence (75 kVp to 18 MV) of radiochromic films assessed using a real-time optical dosimeter.” Med Phys 34(2):458–463 (2007).

125. I. Ali, C. Costescu, M. Vicic, J. F. Dempsey, and J. F. Williamson. “Dependence of radiochromic film optical density post-exposure kinetics on dose and dose fractionation.” Med Phys 30(8):1958–1967 (2003).

126. I. Ali, J. F. Williamson, C. Costescu, and J. F. Dempsey. “Dependence of radiochromic film response kinetics on fractionated doses.” Appl Radiat Isot 62(4):609–617 (2005).

127. J. J. Demarco, R. E. Wallace, and K. Boedeker. “An analysis of MCNP cross-sections and tally methods for low-energy photon emitters.” Phys Med Biol 47(8):1321–1332 (2002).

128. E. Storm and H. Israel. “Photon cross sections from 1 keV to 100 MeV for elements Z=1 to Z=100.” Atomic Nuclear Data Tables 7(6):565–681 (1970).

129. J. F. Williamson. “Monte Carlo evaluation of kerma at a point for photon transport problems.” Med Phys 14(4):567–576 (1987).

130. F. Ballester, C. Hernández, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Lliso. “Monte Carlo calculation of dose rate distributions around 192Ir wires.” Med Phys 24(8):1221–1228 (1997).

131. I. Kawrakow. “On the effective point of measurement in megavoltage photon beams.” Med Phys 33(6):1829–1839 (2006).

132. R. E. Taylor, G. Yegin, and D. W. O. Rogers. “Benchmarking brachydose: Voxel based EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculations of TG-43 dosimetry parameters.” Med Phys 34(2):445–457 (2007).


133. H. Perera, J. F. Williamson, Z. Li, V. Mishra, and A. S. Meigooni. “Dosimetric characteristics, air-kerma strength calibration and verification of Monte Carlo simulation for a new ytterbium-169 brachytherapy source.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 28:953–971 (1994).

134. R. Wang, X. A. Li, and C. X. Yu. “Evaluation of EGS4/PRESTA multiple-scattering algorithms for 90Sr/90Y intravascular brachytherapy dosimetry.” Phys Med Biol 45(8): 2343–2352 (2000).

135. O. Chibani and X. A. Li. “Monte Carlo dose calculations in homogeneous media and at interfaces: a comparison between GEPTS, EGSnrc, MCNP, and measurements.” Med Phys 29(5):835–847 (2002).

136. B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt. Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

137. M. G. Mitch, L. A. DeWerd, R. Minniti, and J. F. Williamson. “Treatment of Uncertainties in Radiation Dosimetry“ in Clinical Dosimetry Measurements in Radiotherapy. D. W. O. Rogers and J. E. Cygler (eds.). AAPM 2009 Summer School proceedings. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 34. Madison, WI: Medical Physics Publishing, pp. 723–758, 2009.

138. D. Granero, J. Vijande, F. Ballester, and M. J. Rivard. “Dosimetry revisited for the HDR 192Ir brachytherapy source model mHDR-v2.” Med Phys 38(1):487–494 (2011).

139. R. E. Taylor and D. W. O. Rogers. “EGSnrc Monte Carlo calculated dosimetry parameters for 192Ir and 169Yb brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 35(11):4933–4944 (2008).

140. O. Chibani and J. F. Williamson. “MCPI: a sub-minute Monte Carlo dose calculation engine for prostate implants.” Med Phys 32(12):3688–3698 (2005).

141. J. F. Williamson. “Monte Carlo and analytic calculation of absorbed dose near 137Cs intracavitary sources.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 15(1):227–237 (1988).

142. J. F. Williamson. “The Sievert integral revisited: evaluation and extension to 125I, 169Yb, and 192Ir brachytherapy sources.” Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36(5):1239–1250 (1996).

143. P. Karaiskos, A. Angelopoulos, P. Baras, H. Rozaki-Mavrouli, P. Sandilos, L. Vlachos, and L. Sakelliou. “Dose rate calculations around 192Ir brachytherapy sources using a Sievert integration model.” Phys Med Biol 45(2):383–398 (2000).

144. J. F. Williamson, Z. Li, and J. W. Wong. “One-dimensional scatter-subtraction method for brachytherapy dose calculation near bounded heterogeneities.” Med Phys 20(1):233–244 (1993).

145. G. M. Daskalov, A. S. Kirov, and J. F. Williamson. “Analytical approach to heterogeneity correction factor calculation for brachytherapy.” Med Phys 25(5):722–735 (1998).

146. R. Wang and R. S. Sloboda. “Brachytherapy scatter dose calculation in heterogeneous media: I. A microbeam ray-tracing method for the single-scatter contribution.” Phys Med Biol 52(18):5619–5636 (2007).

147. R. Wang and R. S. Sloboda. “Brachytherapy scatter dose calculation in heterogeneous media: II. Empirical formulation for the multiple-scatter contribution.” Phys Med Biol 52(18):5637–5654 (2007).

148. J. F. Williamson, R. S. Baker, and Z. F. Li. “A convolution algorithm for brachytherapy dose computations in heterogeneous geometries.” Med Phys 18(6):1256–1265 (1991).

149. A. Carlsson Tedgren and A. Ahnesjö. “Optimization of the computational efficiency of a 3D, collapsed cone dose calculation algorithm for brachytherapy.” Med Phys 35(4):1611–1618 (2008).

150. A. K. Tedgren and A. Ahnesjö. “Accounting for high Z shields in brachytherapy using collapsed cone superposition for scatter dose calculation.” Med Phys 30(8):2206–2217 (2003).

134 HEBD report 151. E. Poon and F. Verhaegen. “A CT-based analytical dose calculation method for HDR 192Ir brachytherapy.”

Med Phys 36(9):3982–3994 (2009).

152. G. M. Daskalov, R. S. Baker, D. W. O. Rogers, and J. F. Williamson. “Dosimetric modeling of the MicroSelectron high-dose rate 192Ir source by the multigroup discrete ordinates method.” Med Phys 27:2307–2319 (2000).

153. K. A. Gifford, J. L. Horton Jr., T. A. Wareing, G. Failla, and F. Mourtada. “Comparison of a finite-element multigroup discrete-ordinates code with Monte Carlo for radiotherapy calculations.” Phys Med Biol 51(9):2253–2265 (2006).

154. O. N. Vassiliev, T. A. Wareing, J. McGhee, G. Failla, M. R. Salehpour, and F. Mourtada. “Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams.” Phys Med Biol 55(3):581–598 (2010).

155. K. Zourari, E. Pantelis, A. Moutsatsos, L. Petrokokkinos, P. Karaiskos, L. Sakelliou, E. Georgiou, and P. Papagiannis. “Dosimetric accuracy of a deterministic radiation transport based 192Ir brachytherapy treatment planning system. Part I: single sources and bounded homogeneous geometries.” Med Phys 37(2):649–661 (2010).

156. C. Zhou and F. Inanc. “Integral-transport-based deterministic brachytherapy dose calculations.” Phys Med Biol 48(1):73–93 (2003).

157. G. J. Kutcher, L. Coia, M. Gillin, W. F. Hanson, S. Leibel, R. J. Morton, J. R. Palta, J. A. Purdy, L. E. Reinstein, G. K. Svensson, M. Weller, and L. Wingfield. “Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40.” Med Phys 21(4):581–618 (1994). Also available as AAPM Report No. 46.

158. B. Fraass, K. Doppke, M. Hunt, G. Kutcher, G. Starkschall, R. Stern, and J. Van Dyke, “American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.” Med Phys 25(10):1773–1829 (1998). Also available as AAPM Report No. 62.

159. M. J. Rivard, C. S. Melhus, and J. F. Williamson. “Brachytherapy Dose Calculation Formalism, Dataset Evaluation, and Treatment Planning System Implementation” in Clinical Dosimetry Measurements in Radiotherapy. D. W. O. Rogers and J. E. Cygler (eds.). AAPM 2009 Summer School. AAPM Medical Physics Monograph No. 34. Madison, WI: Medical Physcis Publishing, pp. 403–436,2009.

160. R. Muller-Runkel and S. H. Cho. “Anisotropy measurements of a high dose rate Ir-192 source in air and in polystyrene.” Med Phys 21(7):1131–1134 (1994).

161. R. W. Roussin, J. R. Knight, J. H. Hubbell, and R. J. Howerton. Description of the DLC-99/Hugo Package of Photon Interaction Data in ENDF/B-V Format. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983.

162. G. P. Glasgow and L. T. Dillman. “Specific gamma-ray constant and exposure rate constant of 192Ir.” Med Phys 6(1):49–52 (1979).

163. J. C. Anctil, B. G. Clark, and C. J. Arsenault. “Experimental determination of dosimetry functions of Ir-192 sources.” Med Phys 25(12):2279–2287 (1998).

164. A. S. Meigooni, J. A. Meli, and R. Nath. “Influence of the variation of energy spectra with depth in the dosimetry of 192Ir using LiF TLD.” Phys Med Biol 33(10):1159–1170 (1988).

165. H. P. Chan and K. Doi. “Physical characteristics of scattered radiation in diagnostic radiology: Monte Carlo simulation studies.” Med Phys 12(2):152–165 (1985).

166. I. Kawrakow and D. W. O. Rogers. The EGSnrc Code System: Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport. Report no. PIRS-0701. Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council of Canada, 2003.


167. B. Duchemin and N. Coursol “Reevaluation de l’192Ir” in Technical Note LPRI/93/018, DAMRI CEA: France, 1993.

168. R. E. Taylor and D. W. O. Rogers. “More accurate fitting of 125I and 103Pd radial dose functions.” Med Phys 35(9):4242–4250 (2008).

169. G. M. Daskalov. “Erratum: ‘Monte Carlo-aided dosimetry of a new high dose-rate brachytherapy source’ [Med Phys 25(11):2200–2208 (1998)].” Med Phys 27(8):1999 (2000).

170. A. Angelopoulos, P. Baras, L. Sakelliou, P. Karaiskos, and P. Sandilos. “Monte Carlo dosimetry of a new 192Ir high dose rate brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 27(11):2521–2527 (2000).

171. R. Brun, F. Bruyant, M. Maire, A. C. McPherson, and P. Zanarini. GEANT3. Technical Report CERN DD/EE/84-1. (Revised 1987).

172. V. S. Shirley. Nuclear Data Sheets for A=192. Nuclear Data Sheets 64:205–322 (1991).

173. D. E. Cullen, J. H. Hubbell, and L. Kissel. EPDL97: the Evaluated Photon Data Library, ’97 Version. UCRL-50400, Vol. 6, Rev. 5, Livermore, CA: University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 1997.

174. D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Ballester. “Monte Carlo study of the dose rate distributions for the Ir2.A85-2 and Ir2.A85-1 Ir-192 afterloading sources.” Med Phys 35(4):1280–1287 (2008).

175. D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, E. Casal, F. Ballester, and J. Venselaar. “A dosimetric study on the Ir-192 high dose rate flexisource.” Med Phys 33(12):4578–4582 (2006).

176. J. H. Hubbell and S. M. Seltzer. “Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for Elements Z=1 to 92 and 48 Additional Substances of Dosimetric Interest.” NISTIR 5632 (1996). http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xraycoef/index.cfm.

177. R. Capote, E. Mainegra, and E. López. “Anisotropy functions for low energy interstitial brachytherapy sources: an EGS4 Monte Carlo study.” Phys Med Biol 46(1):135–150 (2001).

178. E. Mainegra, R. Capote, and E. López. “Radial dose functions for 103Pd, 125I, 169Yb and 192Ir brachytherapy sources: an EGS4 Monte Carlo study.” Phys Med Biol 45(3):703–717 (2000).

179. E. Mainegra, R. Capote, and E. López.“Dose rate constants for 125I, 103Pd, 192Ir and 169Yb brachytherapy sources: an EGS4 Monte Carlo study.” Phys Med Biol 43(6):1557–1566 (1998).

180. C. Thomason and P. Higgins. “Radial dose distribution of 192Ir and 137Cs seed sources.” Med Phys 16(2):254–257 (1989).

181. C. Thomason, T. R. Mackie, and M. J. Lindstrom. “Effect of source encapsulation on the energy spectra of 192Ir and 137Cs seed sources.” Phys Med Biol 36(4):495–505 (1991).

182. C. Thomason, T. R. Mackie, M. J. Lindstrom, and P. D. Higgins. “The dose distribution surrounding 192Ir and 137Cs seed sources.” Phys Med Biol 36(4):475–493 (1991).

183. GEANT4 Collaboration. “GEANT4-a simulation toolkit.” Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 506(3):250–303 (2003).

184. R. Wang and R. S. Sloboda. “EGS4 dosimetry calculations for cylindrically symmetric brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 23(8):1459–1465 (1996).

185. R. Wang and X. A. Li. “A Monte Carlo calculation of dosimetric parameters of 90Sr/90Y and 192Ir SS sources for intravascular brachytherapy.” Med Phys 27(11):2528–2535 (2000).

136 HEBD report 186. C. Nutting, N. Horlock, R. A’Hern, A. Searle, J. M. Henk, P. Rhys-Evans, and K. Harrington. “Manually

after-loaded 192Ir low-dose rate brachytherapy after subtotal excision and flap reconstruction of recurrent cervical lymphadenopathy from head and neck cancer.” Radiother Oncol 80(1):39–42 (2006).

187. J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Lliso, V. Carmona, F. Ballester, and C. Hernández. “Monte Carlo calculation of dose rate distributions around 0.5 and 0.6 mm in diameter 192Ir wires.” Med Phys 26(3):395–401 (1999).

188. J. Bahar-Gogani, G. Wickman, L. Johansson, and B. E. Johansson. “Assessment of the relative dose distribution around an 192Ir line source using a liquid ionization chamber.” Med Phys 26(9):1932–1942 (1999).

189. M. T. Gillin, F. Lopez, R. W. Kline, D. F. Grimm, and A. Niroomand-Rad. “Comparison of measured and calculated dose distributions around an iridium-192 wire.” Med Phys 15(6):915–918 (1988).

190. L. Liu, S. C. Prasad, and D. A. Bassano. “Determination of 137Cs dosimetry parameters according to the AAPM TG-43 formalism.” Med Phys 31(3):477–483 (2004).

191. J. Pérez-Calatayud, D. Granero, E. Casal, F. Ballester, and V. Puchades. “Monte Carlo and experimental derivation of TG43 dosimetric parameters for CSM-type Cs-137 sources.” Med Phys 32(1):28–36 (2005).

192. J. F. Williamson and T. Seminoff. “Template-guided interstitial implants: Cs-137 reusable sources as a substitute for Ir-192.” Radiology 165(1):265–269 (1987).

193. A. S. Meigooni, C. Wright, R. A. Koona, S. B. Awan, D. Granero, J. Pérez-Calatayud, and F. Ballester. “TG-43 U1 based dosimetric characterization of model 67-6520 Cs-137 brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 36(10):4711–4719 (2009).

194. A. Otal, J. M. Martínez-Fernández, and D. Granero. “Revision of the dosimetric parameters of the CSM11 LDR Cs-137 source.” J Contemp Brachyther 3(1):4 (2011).

195. T. P. Selvam and S. Bhola. “Technical note: EGSnrc-based dosimetric study of the BEBIG 60Co HDR brachytherapy sources.” Med Phys 37(3):1365–1370 (2010).

196. N. S. Patel, S. T. Chiu-Tsao, J. A. Shih, Y. Ho, H. S. Tsao, and L. B. Harrison. “Treatment planning dosimetric parameters for 192Ir seed at short distances: effects of air channels and neighboring seeds based on Monte Carlo study.” Med Phys 31(6):1521–1528 (2004).

197. A. S. Meigooni, M. T. Kleiman, J. L. Johnson, D. Mazloomdoost, and G. S. Ibbott. “Dosimetric characteristics of a new high-intensity 192Ir source for remote afterloading.” Med Phys 24(12),:2008–2013 (1997).

198. P. Karaiskos, A. Angelopoulos, P. Baras, L. Sakelliou, P. Sandilos, K. Dardoufas, and L. Vlachos. “A Monte Carlo investigation of the dosimetric characteristics of the VariSource 192Ir high dose rate brachytherapy source.” Med Phys 26(8):1498–1502 (1999).

199. F. Lliso, J. Pérez-Calatayud, V. Carmona, F. Ballester, J. L. Lluch, M. A. Serrano, Y. Limami, and E. Casal. “Fitted dosimetric parameters of high dose-rate 192Ir sources according to the AAPM TG43 formalism.” Med Phys 28(4):654–660 (2001).

200. F. Lliso, J. Pérez-Calatayud, V. Carmona, F. Ballester, J. L. Lluch, M. A. Serrano, Y. Limami, and E. Casal. “Erratum: ‘Fitted dosimetric parameters of high dose-rate 192Ir sources according to the AAPM TG43 formalism’ [Med Phys 28(4):654–660 (2001)].” Med Phys 28(9):1 (2001).

201. J. Pérez-Calatayud, D. Granero, F. Ballester, V. Puchades, and E. Casal. “Monte Carlo dosimetric characterization of the Cs-137 selectron/LDR source: evaluation of applicator attenuation and superposition approximation effects.” Med Phys 31(3):493–499 (2004).

202. D. Granero, V. Puchades, J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Ballester, and E. Casal. “Cálculo por Monte Carlo de la distribución de la tasa de dosis alrededor de la fuente de 137Cs CSM1.” Rev Física Médica 1:32–37 (2004).


203. J. Pérez-Calatayud, F. Lliso, F. Ballester, M. A. Serrano, J. L. Lluch, Y. Limami, V. Puchades, and E. Casal. “A Monte Carlo study of dose rate distribution around the specially asymmetric CSM3-a 137Cs source.” Phys Med Biol 46(7):N169–174 (2001).

204. B. L. Diffey and S. C. Klevenhagen. “An experimental and calculated dose distribution in water around CDC K-type caesium-137 sources.” Phys Med Biol 20(3):446–454 (1975).

205. K. E. Breitman. “Dose-rate tables for clinical 137Cs sources sheathed in platinum.” Br J Radiol 47(562):657–664 (1974).

206. S. C. Klevenhagen. “An experimental study of the dose distribution in water around 137Cs tubes used in brachytherapy.” Br J Radiol 46(552):1073–1082 (1973).

207. T. P. Selvam, S. Sahoo, and R. S. Vishwakarma. “Comment on ‘Monte Carlo dosimetry of 60Co HDR brachytherapy sources’ [Med Phys 30:712–721 (2003)].” Med Phys 37(9):5146–5147 (2010).

Documents

Dose Calculation for Photon-Emitting Brachytherapy Sources ...Radiotherapy Department, La Fe Polythecnic and University Hospital, Valencia 46026, Spain Facundo Ballester Department