A Comparison of the Dosimetric Parameters of Cs-137 Brachytherapy Source in Different Tissues with Water Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 School of Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2 School of Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Radiation Research Center, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

3 Comprehensive Cancer Center of Nevada, 3730 S. Eastern Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Abstract

Introduction
After the publication of Task Group number 43 dose calculation formalism by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM), this method has been known as the most common dose calculation method in brachytherapy treatment planning. In this formalism, the water phantom is introduced as the reference dosimetry phantom, while the attenuation coefficient of the sources in the water phantom is different from that of different tissues. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of the phantom materials on the TG-43 dosimetery parameters of the Cs-137 brachytherapy source using MCNP4C Monte Carlo code.
Materials and Methods
In this research, the Cs-137 (Model Selectron) brachytherapy source was simulated in different phantoms (bone, soft tissue, muscle, fat, and the inhomogeneous phantoms of water/bone) of volume 27000 cm3 using MCNP4C Monte Carlo code. *F8 tally was used to obtain the dose in a fine cubical lattice. Then the TG-43 dosimetry parameters of the brachytherapy source were obtained in water phantom and compared with those of different phantoms.
Results
The percentage difference between the radial dose function g(r) of bone and the g(r) of water phantom, at a distance of 10 cm from the source center is 20%, while such differences are 1.7%, 1.6% and 1.1% for soft tissue, muscle, and fat, respectively. The largest difference of the dose rate constant of phantoms with those of water is 4.52% for the bone phantom, while the differences for soft tissue, muscle, and fat are 1.18%, 1.27%, and 0.18%, respectively. The 2D anisotropy function of the Cs-137 source for different tissues is identical to that of water.
Conclusion
The results of the simulations have shown that dose calculation in water phantom would introduce errors in the dose calculation around brachytherapy sources. Therefore, it is suggested that the correction factors of different tissues be applied after dose calculation in water phantoms, in order to decrease the errors of brachytherapy treatment planning.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  Khan FM. The physics of radiation therapy .3th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2003. p.560.
  2. Nath R, Anderson LL, Luxton G, Weaver KA, Williamson JF, Meigooni AS. Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Med Phys. 1995; 22(2):209-34.
  3. Markman J, Williamson JF, Dempsey JF, Low DA. On the validity of the superposition principle in dose calculations for intracavitary implants with shielded vaginal colpostats. Med Phys. 2001; 28(2):147-55.
  4. Sina S, Faghihi R, Meigooni AS, Mehdizadeh S, Mosleh Shirazi MA, Zehtabian M. Impact of the vaginal applicator and dummy pellets on the dosimetry parameters of Cs-137 brachytherapy source. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2011; 12(3):3480.
  5. Rivard MJ, Venselaar JL, Beaulieu L. The evolution of brachytherapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 2009; 36(6):2136-53.
  6. Sina S, Faghihi R, Meigooni AS, Mehdizadeh S, Zehtabian M, Mosleh-Shirazi MA. Simulation of the shielding effects of an applicator on the AAPM TG-43 parameters of Cs-137 Selectron LDR brachytherapy sources. Iran J Radiat Res. 2009; 7(3):135-40.
  7. Pérez-Calatayud J, Granero D, Ballester F. Phantom size in brachytherapy source dosimetric studies. Med Phys. 2004; 31(7):2075-81.
  8. Pérez-Calatayud J, Granero D, Ballester F, Lliso F. A Monte Carlo study of intersource effects in dome-type applicators loaded with LDR Cs-137 sources. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77(2):216-9.
  9. Pérez-Calatayud J, Granero D, Ballester F, Puchades V, Casal E. Monte Carlo dosimetric characterization of the Cs-137 selectron/LDR source: evaluation of applicator attenuation and superposition approximation effects. Med Phys. 2004; 31(3):493-9.
  10. Rivard MJ, Butler WM, DeWerd LA, Huq MS, Ibbott GS, Meigooni AS, et al. Supplement to the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report. Med Phys. 2007 Jun;34(6):2187-205.
  11. Briemeister JF. MCNP - A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code. Version 4C Ed. Los Alamos New Mexico:Los Alamos National Laboratory 2001.
  12. Rivard MJ, Coursey BM, DeWerd LA, Hanson WF, Huq MS, Ibbott GS, et al. Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations. Med Phys. 2004; 31(3):633-74.
  13. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Tissue Substitutes in Radiation Dosimetry and Measurements, ICRU Report 44. Bethesda, Maryland: ICRU Publications; 1989.
  14. Fragoso M. Application of Monte Carlo Techniques for the Calculation of Accurate Brachytherapy Dose Distributions [ PhD thesis]. The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Trust: University of London; 2004.
  15. Fragoso M, Love PA, Verhaegen F, Nalder C, Bidmead AM, Leach M, et al. The dose distribution of low dose rate Cs-137 in intracavitary brachytherapy: comparison of Monte Carlo simulation, treatment planning calculation and polymer gel measurement. Phys Med Biol. 2004; 49(24):5459-74.
  16. Sina S, Faghihi R , Zehtabian M , Mehdizadeh S.  Investigation of the Anisotropy Caused by a Cylinder Applicator on Dose Distribution around Cs-137 Brachytherapy Sources using the MCNP4C Code. Iran J Med Phys. 2011; 8(2):45:52.
  17. Melhus CS, Rivard MJ. Approaches to calculating AAPM TG-43 brachytherapy dosimetry parameters for 137Cs, 125I, 192Ir, 103Pd, and 169Yb sources. Med Phys. 2006; 33(6):1729-37.
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 9, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
March and April 2012
Pages 65-74

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 January 2012
  • Revise Date: 03 March 2013
  • Accept Date: 01 February 2012

Share

How to cite

Statistics