Dosimetric characterization of a new directional low‐dose rate brachytherapy source
Authors: Aima Manik , DeWerd Larry A. , Mitch Michael G. , Hammer Clifford G. , Culberson Wesley S. 
Published: May 2018

Purpose

CivaTech Oncology Inc. (Durham, NC) has developed a novel low‐dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy source called the CivaSheet.TM The source is a planar array of discrete elements (“CivaDots”) which are directional in nature. The CivaDot geometry and design are considerably different than conventional LDR cylindrically symmetric sources. Thus, a thorough investigation is required to ascertain the dosimetric characteristics of the source. This work investigates the repeatability and reproducibility of a primary source strength standard for the CivaDot and characterizes the CivaDot dose distribution by performing in‐phantom measurements and Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Existing dosimetric formalisms were adapted to accommodate a directional source, and other distinguishing characteristics including the presence of gold shield x‐ray fluorescence were addressed in this investigation.

Methods

Primary air‐kerma strength (SK) measurements of the CivaDots were performed using two free‐air chambers namely, the Variable‐Aperture Free‐Air Chamber (VAFAC) at the University of Wisconsin Medical Radiation Research Center (UWMRRC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Wide‐Angle Free‐Air Chamber (WAFAC). An intercomparison of the two free‐air chamber measurements was performed along with a comparison of the different assumed CivaDot energy spectra and associated correction factors. Dose distribution measurements of the source were performed in a custom polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom using GafchromicTM EBT3 film and thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) microcubes. Monte Carlo simulations of the source and the measurement setup were performed using MCNP6 radiation transport code.

Results

The CivaDot SK was determined using the two free‐air chambers for eight sources with an agreement of better than 1.1% for all sources. The NIST measured CivaDot energy spectrum intensity peaks were within 1.8% of the MC‐predicted spectrum intensity peaks. The difference in the net source‐specific correction factor determined for the CivaDot free‐air chamber measurements for the NIST WAFAC and UW VAFAC was 0.7%. The dose‐rate constant analog was determined to be 0.555 cGy h−1 U−1. The average difference observed in the estimated CivaDot dose‐rate constant analog using measurements and MCNP6‐predicted value (0.558 cGy h−1 U−1) was 0.6% ± 2.3% for eight CivaDot sources using EBT3 film, and −2.6% ± 1.7% using TLD microcube measurements. The CivaDot two‐dimensional dose‐to‐water distribution measured in phantom was compared to the corresponding MC predictions at six depths. The observed difference using a pixel‐by‐pixel subtraction map of the measured and the predicted dose‐to‐water distribution was generally within 2–3%, with maximum differences up to 5% of the dose prescribed at the depth of 1 cm.

Conclusion

Primary SK measurements of the CivaDot demonstrated good repeatability and reproducibility of the free‐air chamber measurements. Measurements of the CivaDot dose distribution using the EBT3 film stack phantom and its subsequent comparison to Monte Carlo‐predicted dose distributions were encouraging, given the overall uncertainties. This work will aid in the eventual realization of a clinically viable dosimetric framework for the CivaSheet based on the CivaDot dose distribution.