PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of and challenges yet to be addressed to measure dose from low energy (effective energy <50 keV) brachytherapy sources (Pd-103, Cs-131, and I-125) using polyurethane based 3D dosimeters with optical CT. METHODS: The authors' evaluation used the following sources: models 200 (Pd-103), CS-1 Rev2 (Cs-131), and 6711 (I-125). The authors used the Monte Carlo radiation transport code MCNP5, simulations with the ScanSim optical tomography simulation software, and experimental measurements with PRESAGE(®) dosimeters/optical CT to investigate the following: (1) the water equivalency of conventional (density = 1.065 g/cm(3)) and deformable (density = 1.02 g/cm(3)) formulations of polyurethane dosimeters, (2) the scatter conditions necessary to achieve accurate dosimetry for low energy photon seeds, (3) the change in photon energy spectrum within the dosimeter as a function of distance from the source in order to determine potential energy sensitivity effects, (4) the optimal delivered dose to balance optical transmission (per projection) with signal to noise ratio in the reconstructed dose distribution, and (5) the magnitude and characteristics of artifacts due to the presence of a channel in the dosimeter. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using both conventional and deformable dosimeter formulations. For verification, 2.8 Gy at 1 cm was delivered in 92 h using an I-125 source to a PRESAGE(®) dosimeter with conventional formulation and a central channel with 0.0425 cm radius for source placement. The dose distribution was reconstructed with 0.02 and 0.04 cm(3) voxel size using the Duke midsized optical CT scanner (DMOS). RESULTS: While the conventional formulation overattenuates dose from all three sources compared to water, the current deformable formulation has nearly water equivalent attenuation properties for Cs-131 and I-125, while underattenuating for Pd-103. The energy spectrum of each source is relatively stable within the first 5 cm especially for I-125. The inherent assumption of radial symmetry in the TG43 geometry leads to a linear increase in sample points within the 3D dosimeter as a function of distance away from the source, which partially offsets the decreasing signal. Simulations of dose reconstruction using optical CT showed the feasibility of reconstructing dose out to a radius of 10 cm without saturating projection images using an optimal dose and high dynamic range scanning; the simulations also predicted that reconstruction artifacts at the channel surface due to a small discrepancy in refractive index should be negligible. Agreement of the measured with calculated radial dose function for I-125 was within 5% between 0.3 and 2.5 cm from the source, and the median difference of measured from calculated anisotropy function was within 5% between 0.3 and 2.0 cm from the source. CONCLUSIONS: 3D dosimetry using polyurethane dosimeters with optical CT looks to be a promising application to verify dosimetric distributions surrounding low energy brachytherapy sources.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of and challenges yet to be addressed to measure dose from low energy (effective energy <50 keV) brachytherapy sources (Pd-103, Cs-131, and I-125) using polyurethane based 3D dosimeters with optical CT. METHODS: The authors' evaluation used the following sources: models 200 (Pd-103), CS-1 Rev2 (Cs-131), and 6711 (I-125). The authors used the Monte Carlo radiation transport code MCNP5, simulations with the ScanSim optical tomography simulation software, and experimental measurements with PRESAGE(®) dosimeters/optical CT to investigate the following: (1) the water equivalency of conventional (density = 1.065 g/cm(3)) and deformable (density = 1.02 g/cm(3)) formulations of polyurethane dosimeters, (2) the scatter conditions necessary to achieve accurate dosimetry for low energy photon seeds, (3) the change in photon energy spectrum within the dosimeter as a function of distance from the source in order to determine potential energy sensitivity effects, (4) the optimal delivered dose to balance optical transmission (per projection) with signal to noise ratio in the reconstructed dose distribution, and (5) the magnitude and characteristics of artifacts due to the presence of a channel in the dosimeter. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using both conventional and deformable dosimeter formulations. For verification, 2.8 Gy at 1 cm was delivered in 92 h using an I-125 source to a PRESAGE(®) dosimeter with conventional formulation and a central channel with 0.0425 cm radius for source placement. The dose distribution was reconstructed with 0.02 and 0.04 cm(3) voxel size using the Duke midsized optical CT scanner (DMOS). RESULTS: While the conventional formulation overattenuates dose from all three sources compared to water, the current deformable formulation has nearly water equivalent attenuation properties for Cs-131 and I-125, while underattenuating for Pd-103. The energy spectrum of each source is relatively stable within the first 5 cm especially for I-125. The inherent assumption of radial symmetry in the TG43 geometry leads to a linear increase in sample points within the 3D dosimeter as a function of distance away from the source, which partially offsets the decreasing signal. Simulations of dose reconstruction using optical CT showed the feasibility of reconstructing dose out to a radius of 10 cm without saturating projection images using an optimal dose and high dynamic range scanning; the simulations also predicted that reconstruction artifacts at the channel surface due to a small discrepancy in refractive index should be negligible. Agreement of the measured with calculated radial dose function for I-125 was within 5% between 0.3 and 2.5 cm from the source, and the median difference of measured from calculated anisotropy function was within 5% between 0.3 and 2.0 cm from the source. CONCLUSIONS: 3D dosimetry using polyurethane dosimeters with optical CT looks to be a promising application to verify dosimetric distributions surrounding low energy brachytherapy sources.
Authors: Joseph Newton; Mark Oldham; Andrew Thomas; Yifan Li; John Adamovics; David G Kirsch; Shiva Das Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Tina Gorjiara; Robin Hill; Zdenka Kuncic; John Adamovics; Stephen Bosi; Jung-Ha Kim; Clive Baldock Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: C Baldock; Y De Deene; S Doran; G Ibbott; A Jirasek; M Lepage; K B McAuley; M Oldham; L J Schreiner Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2010-02-11 Impact factor: 3.609