UNASSIGNED: Most brachytherapy treatment planning system (TPS) commissioning requires data input based on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group-43 formalism. The commissioning accuracy is very important for dose calculation. The aim of this study is the implementation of a brachytherapy TPS into a clinical environment and check the TPS calculated dose accuracy.
UNASSIGNED: After introducing data of the different catheters (CIS Bio International, Saclay, France), composed of several Cesium-137 Eckert and Ziegler BEBIG CSM-11 radioactive sources; for XiO (CMS, St. Louis) brachytherapy TPS, the TPS dose calculation accuracy was investigated by comparing between the TPS calculated dose distribution (DD) for all the catheters with (1) the measuring DD using EBT3 GAFChromic film and (2) calculating DD by egs_brachy (Electron Gamma Shower, National Research Council of Canada) Monte Carlo simulation. The phantom used for this study consists of six PTW slabs 30 cm × 30 cm × 1 cm of polymethyl methacrylate with a Delouche MEDpro applicator on the top. The TPS DD was calculated on the computed tomography scan of this phantom.
UNASSIGNED: PTW VeriSoft version 6.0.1.7 (PTW-Freiburg, Germany) software was used for analyzing scanned films and to perform the comparison based on the gamma index distribution.
UNASSIGNED: For each catheter, the gamma index distribution showed agreement >95% of all pixels in both verification methods, with gamma ≤1.
UNASSIGNED: We confirm the commissioning accuracy and that the TPS can be used for clinical purposes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment plans for interstitial high dose rate (HDR) liver brachytherapy with 192Ir calculated according to current-standard TG-43U1 protocol with model-based dose calculation following TG-186 protocol.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters for liver, organs at risk (OARs) and clinical target volumes (CTVs) of 20 patient cases diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Dose calculations on a homogeneous water geometry (TG-43U1 surrogate) and on a computed tomography (CT) based geometry (TG-186) were performed using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The CTs were segmented based on a combination of assigning TG-186 recommended tissues to fixed Hounsfield Unit (HU) ranges and using organ contours delineated by physicians. For the liver, V5Gy and V10Gy were analysed, and for OARs the dose to 1 cubic centimeter (D1cc). Target coverage was assessed by calculating V150, V100, V95 and V90 as well as D95 and D90. For every DVH parameter, median, minimum and maximum values of the deviations of TG-186 from TG-43U1 were analysed.
RESULTS: TG-186-calculated dose was found to be on average lower than dose calculated with TG-43U1. The deviation of highest magnitude for liver parameters was -6.2% of the total liver volume. For OARs, the deviations were all smaller than or equal to -0.5 Gy. Target coverage deviations were as high as -1.5% of the total CTV volume and -3.5% of the prescribed dose.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that TG-43U1 overestimates dose to liver tissue compared to TG-186. This finding may be of clinical importance for cases where dose to the whole liver is the limiting factor.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical use of brachytherapy sources requires the existence of dosimetric data with enough of quality for the proper application of treatments in clinical practice. It has been found that the published data for the low dose rate CSM11 Cs-137 source lacks of smoothness in some regions because the data are too noisy. The purpose of this study was to calculate the dosimetric data for this source in order to provide quality dosimetric improvement of the existing dosimetric data of Ballester et al. [1].
METHODS: In order to obtain the dose rate distributions Monte Carlo simulations were done using the GEANT4 code. A spherical phantom 40 cm in radius with the Cs-137 source located at the centre of the phantom was used.
RESULTS: The results from Monte Carlo simulations were applied to derive AAPM Task Group 43 dosimetric parameters: anisotropy function, radial dose function, air kerma strength and dose rate constant. The dose rate constant obtained was 1.094 ± 0.002 cGy h-1 U-1. The new calculated data agrees within experimental uncertainties with the existing data of Ballester et al. but without the statistical noise of that study.
CONCLUSIONS: The obtained data presently fulfills all the requirements of the TG-43U1 update and thus it can be used in clinical practice.

Clinical application using high-dose rate (HDR) (192)Ir sources in remote afterloading technique is a well-established treatment method. In this direction, Board of Radiation and Isotope Technology (BRIT) and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, India, jointly indigenously developed a remote afterloading machine and (192)Ir HDR source. The two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution and dosimetric parameters of the BRIT (192)Ir HDR source are generated using EGSnrc Monte Carlo code system in a 40 cm dia × 40 cm height cylindrical water phantom. The values of air-kerma strength and dose rate constant for BRIT (192)Ir HDR source are 9.894 × 10(-8) ± 0.06% UBq(-1) and 1.112 ± 0.11% cGyh(-1)U(-1), respectively. The values of radial dose function (gL(r)) of this source compare well with the corresponding values of BEBIG, Flexisource, and GammaMed 12i source models. This is because of identical active lengths of the sources (3.5 mm) and the comparable phantom dimensions. A comparison of gL(r) values of BRIT source with microSelectron-v1 show differences about 2% at r = 6 cm and up to 13% at r = 12 cm, which is due to differences in phantom dimensions involved in the calculations. The anisotropy function of BRIT (192)Ir HDR source is comparable with the corresponding values of microSelectron-v1 (classic) HDR source.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative dose rate distribution around the new (125)I brachytherapy source IsoSeed I25.S17plus and report results in a form suitable for clinical use. Results for the new source are also compared to corresponding results for other commercially available (125)I sources of similar design.
METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the MCNP5 v.1.6 general purpose code. The model of the new source was prepared from information provided by the manufacturer and verified by imaging a sample of ten non-radioactive sources. Corresponding simulations were also performed for the 6711 (125)I brachytherapy source, using updated geometric information presented recently in the literature. The uncertainty of the dose distribution around the new source, as well as the dosimetric quantities derived from it according to the Task Group 43 formalism, were determined from the standard error of the mean of simulations for a sample of fifty source models. These source models were prepared by randomly selecting values of geometric parameters from uniform distributions defined by manufacturer stated tolerances.
CONCLUSIONS: Results are presented in the form of the quantities defined in the update of the Task Group 43 report, as well as a relative dose rate table in Cartesian coordinates. The dose rate distribution of the new source is comparable to that of sources of similar design (IsoSeed I25.S17, Oncoseed 6711, SelectSeed 130.002, Advantage IAI-125A, I-Seed AgX100, Thinseed 9011). Noticeable differences were observed only for the IsoSeed I25.S06 and Best 2301 sources.