Premium
SU‐E‐T‐284: Revisiting Reference Dosimetry for the Model S700 Axxent 50 KV p Electronic Brachytherapy Source
Author(s) -
Hiatt JR,
Rivard MJ
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4888616
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , dosimetry , imaging phantom , kerma , monte carlo method , physics , transverse plane , nuclear medicine , radioactive source , point source , materials science , computational physics , optics , radiation therapy , mathematics , detector , medicine , statistics , anatomy
Purpose: The model S700 Axxent electronic brachytherapy source by Xoft was characterized in 2006 by Rivard et al. The source design was modified in 2006 to include a plastic centering insert at the source tip to more accurately position the anode. The objectives of the current study were to establish an accurate Monte Carlo source model for simulation purposes, to dosimetrically characterize the new source and obtain its TG‐43 brachytherapy dosimetry parameters, and to determine dose differences between the source with and without the centering insert. Methods: Design information from dissected sources and vendor‐supplied CAD drawings were used to devise the source model for radiation transport simulations of dose distributions in a water phantom. Collision kerma was estimated as a function of radial distance, r, and polar angle, θ, for determination of reference TG‐43 dosimetry parameters. Simulations were run for 10 10 histories, resulting in statistical uncertainties on the transverse plane of 0.03% at r=1 cm and 0.08% at r=10 cm. Results: The dose rate distribution the transverse plane did not change beyond 2% between the 2006 model and the current study. While differences exceeding 15% were observed near the source distal tip, these diminished to within 2% for r>1.5 cm. Differences exceeding a factor of two were observed near θ=150° and in contact with the source, but diminished to within 20% at r=10 cm. Conclusions: Changes in source design influenced the overall dose rate and distribution by more than 2% over a third of the available solid angle external from the source. For clinical applications using balloons or applicators with tissue located within 5 cm from the source, dose differences exceeding 2% were observed only for θ>110°. This study carefully examined the current source geometry and presents a modern reference TG‐43 dosimetry dataset for the model S700 source.