Premium
SU‐F‐T‐30: Comprehensive Dosimetric Characterization of the Novel Direction Modulation Brachytherapy (DMBT) Tandem Applicator Using Monte Carlo Simulations
Author(s) -
Safigholi H,
Han D,
Mashouf S,
Soliman Abraam,
Owrangi A,
Song W Y
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4956165
Subject(s) - brachytherapy , tandem , monte carlo method , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , materials science , physics , optics , computational physics , radiation therapy , mathematics , medicine , statistics , composite material
Purpose: To characterize the dosimetric properties/distributions of the novel proposed direction modulated brachytherapy (DMBT) tandem applicator in combination with 192Ir HDR source, and compare against conventional tandem design, using Monte Carlo simulations. Methods: The proposed DMBT tandem applicator is designed for image‐guided adaptive brachytherapy, especially MRI, of cervical cancer. It has 6 peripheral holes of 1.3‐mm width, grooved along a 5.4‐mm diameter nonmagnetic tungsten alloy rod of density 18.0 g/cc, capable of generating directional dose profiles – leading to enhanced dose sculpting capacity through inverse planning. In‐water dosimetric parameters for the DMBT and conventional tandems have been calculated for various radial distances away and around the tandems. For the DMBT tandem, the cumulative dose from the 192Ir source occupying 1) one and 2) all six holes in equal dwell times was calculated and normalized to match the dose rate of the open source (in conventional tandem) at 1 cm from the center. This is done to compare and contrast the characteristic dose distributions to that of the isotropic TG43‐based 192Ir source. Results: All dose rates were normalized at 1‐cm radius from the center of the applicators, containing source(s). The normalized dose rates at 0.5, 3.0, and 5.0‐cm radiuses were then 388, 11.3, and 4.1% for conventional tandem, 657, 8.1, and 2.7% for DMBT tandem with the source in one hole at front entrance, and 436, 10.9, and 3.8% for DMBT tandem with the source in all six holes. For the DMBT tandem case with the source in one hole, the backside transmissions were 47, 2.4, and 0.9%, respectively. Conclusion: The DMBT tandem is able to generate closely similar dosimetric characteristics as that of the single‐channel conventional tandem if needed (with the source occupying all six holes), at the same time, generate directional radiation profile(s) for favorably enabling 3D dose sculpting capability.