Suitability of the microDiamond detector for experimental determination of the anisotropy function of High Dose Rate 192Ir brachytherapy sources
Authors: Rossi Giulio , Gainey Mark , Kollefrath Michael , Hofmann Elena , Baltas Dimos 
Published: September 2020

PurposeTo investigate the suitability of the microDiamond detector (mDD) type 60019 (PTW‐Freiburg, Germany) to measure the anisotropy function F(r,θ) of High Dose Rate (HDR) 192Ir brachytherapy sources.MethodsThe HDR 192Ir brachytherapy source, model mHDR‐v2r (Elekta AB, Sweden), was placed inside a water tank within a 4F plastic needle. Four mDDs (mDD1, mDD2, mDD3, and mDD4) were investigated. Each mDD was placed laterally with respect to the source, and measurements were performed at radial distances r = 1 cm, 3 and 5 cm, and polar angles θ from 0° to 168°. The Monte Carlo (MC) system EGSnrc was used to simulate the measurements and to calculate phantom effect, energy dependence and volume‐averaging correction factors. F(r,θ) was determined according to TG‐43 formalism from the detector reading corrected with the MC‐based factors and compared to the consensus anisotropy function CONF(r,θ).ResultsAt 1 cm, the differences between measurements and MC simulations ranged from −0.8% to +0.8% for θ = 0° and from −2.1% to + 2.3% for θ ≠ 0°. At 3 and 5 cm, the differences ranged from +1.4% to +3.9% for θ = 0°, and from −0.4% to +2.9% for θ ≠ 0°. All differences were within the uncertainties (k = 2). At small angles, the phantom effect correction was up to −1.9%. This effect was mainly caused by the air between source and needle tip. The energy correction was angle‐independent everywhere. For small angles at 1 cm, the volume‐averaging correction was up to −2.9% and became less important for larger angles and distances. The differences of the measured F(r,θ) corrected with the MC‐based factors to CONF(r,θ) ranged from –1.0% to +3.4% for mDD1, –2.2% to +4.2% for mDD2, –2.5% to +4.0% for mDD3, and −2.6% to +3.4% for mDD4. All differences were within the uncertainties (k = 2) except one at (3 cm, 0°). For all the mDDs, F(r,0°) was always higher than CONF(r,0°), with average differences of +3.1% (1 cm), +3.6% (3 cm), and +1.9% (5 cm). The inter‐detector variability was within 2.9% (1 cm), 1.8% (3 cm), and 3.4% (5 cm).ConclusionsA reproducible method and experimental setup were presented for measuring and validating F(r,θ) of an HDR 192Ir brachytherapy source in a water phantom using the mDD. The phantom effect and the volume‐averaging need to be taken into account, especially for the smaller distances and angles. Good agreement to CONF(r,θ) was obtained. The discrepancies at (1 cm, 0°), accurately predicted by the MC results, may suggest a reconsideration of CONF(r,θ), at least for this position. The slight overestimations at (3 cm,0°) and (5 cm,0°), both in comparison to CONF(r,θ) and MC results, may be due to an underestimation of the air volume between source and needle tip, dark current, intrinsic over‐response of the mDDs, or radiation‐induced charge imbalance in the detector’s components. The results indicate that the mDD is a valuable tool for measurements with HDR 192Ir brachytherapy sources and support its employment for the determination and validation of TG‐43 parameters of such sources.