Monte Carlo calculation of the TG-43 dosimetry parameters for the INTRABEAM source with spherical applicators

OBJECTIVE

The relative TG-43 dosimetry parameters of the INTRABEAM (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) bare probe were recently reported by Ayala Alvarezet al(2020Phys. Med. Biol.65245041). The current study focuses on the dosimetry characterization of the INTRABEAM source with the eight available spherical applicators according to the TG-43 formalism using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

APPROACH

This report includes the calculated dose-rate conversion coefficients that determine the absolute dose rate to water at a reference point of 10 mm from the applicator surface, based on calibration air-kerma rate measurements at 50 cm from the source on its transverse plane. Since the air-kerma rate measurements are not yet provided from a standards laboratory for the INTRABEAM, the values in the present study were calculated with MC. This approach is aligned with other works in the search for standardization of the dosimetry of electronic brachytherapy sources. As a validation of the MC model, depth dose calculations along the source axis were compared with calibration data from the source manufacturer.

MAIN RESULTS

The calculated dose-rate conversion coefficients were 434.0 for the bare probe, and 683.5, 548.3, 449.9, 376.5, 251.0, 225.6, 202.8, and 182.6 for the source with applicators of increasing diameter from 15 to 50 mm, respectively. The radial dose and the 2D anisotropy functions of the TG-43 formalism were also obtained and tabulated in this document.

SIGNIFICANCE

This work presents the data required by a treatment planning system for the characterization of the INTRABEAM system in the context of intraoperative radiotherapy applications.

Clinical Implication of Dosimetry Formalisms for Electronic Low-Energy Photon Intraoperative Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

Intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) using the INTRABEAM, a miniature x-ray source, has shown to be effective in treating breast cancer. However, recent investigations have suggested a significant deviation between the reported and delivered doses. In this work, the dose delivered by INTRABEAM in the TARGIT breast protocol was investigated, along with the dose from the Xoft Axxent, another source used in breast IORT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The absorbed dose from the INTRABEAM was determined from ionization chamber measurements using: (a) the manufacturer-recommended formula (Zeiss V4.0 method), (b) a Monte Carlo calculated chamber conversion factor (C_Q method), and (c) the formula consistent with the TARGIT breast protocol (TARGIT method). The dose from the Xoft Axxent was determined from ionization chamber measurements using the Zeiss V4.0 method and calculated using the American Association of Physicists in Medicine TG-43 formalism.

RESULTS

For a nominal TARGIT prescription of 20 Gy, the dose at the INTRABEAM applicator surface ranged from 25.2 to 31.7 Gy according to the C_Q method for the largest (5 cm) and smallest (1.5 cm) diameter applicator, respectively. The Zeiss V4.0 method results were 7% to 10% lower (23.2 to 28.6 Gy). At 1 cm depth, the C_Q and Zeiss V4.0 absorbed doses were also larger than those predicted by the TARGIT method. The dose at 1 cm depth from the Xoft Axxent for a surface dose of 20 Gy was slightly less than INTRABEAM (3%-7% compared with C_Q method). An exception was for the 3 cm applicator, where the Xoft dose was appreciably lower (31%).

CONCLUSIONS

The doses delivered in the TARGIT breast protocol with INTRABEAM were significantly greater than the prescribed 20 Gy and depended on the size of spherical applicator used. Breast IORT treatments with the Xoft Axxent received less dose compared with TARGIT INTRABEAM, which could have implications for studies comparing clinical outcomes between the 2 devices.

Treatment of cervical cancer with electronic brachytherapy

PURPOSE

We report the first cervical cancer cases treated with interstitial electronic brachytherapy (eBT) at our hospital and compare them with plans made with high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy based on Ir192 (HDR-BT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight patients with cervical cancer were treated with the Axxent eBT device (Xoft, Inc.). Planning was with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography following the recommendations of the EMBRACE protocol. The dosimetry parameters of organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated for the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon (D2cc, D1cc, and D0.1cc). In addition, the V150 and V200 of irradiated tissue were compared for both eBT and HDR-BT. All patients received intensity-modulated external beam radiation therapy with a regimen of 23 sessions of 2 Gy followed by four sessions of 7 Gy of eBT performed over 2 weeks (two sessions followed by another two sessions a week later) following the EMBRACE recommendations. Each of the eight patients was followed to assess acute toxicity associated with treatment.

RESULTS

The doses reaching OAR for eBT plans were lower than for HDR-BT plans. As for acute toxicity associated with eBT, very few cases of mucositis were detected. No cases of rectal toxicity and one case with grade 1 urinary toxicity were detected. The results at 1 month are equally good, and no relapses have occurred to date.

CONCLUSIONS

The first results of treatment with the Axxent eBT device are promising, as no recurrences have been observed and toxicity is very low. eBT is a good alternative for treating cervical cancer in centers without access to conventional HDR.

Postoperative endometrial cancer treatments with electronic brachytherapy source

Purpose

This study is a dosimetric and acute toxicity comparison of endometrial cancer patients treated with either Axxent (Xoft, Inc., San José, CA, USA) electronic and interstitial brachytherapy versus interstitial high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRBT).

Materials and Methods

Between 2015 and 2017, 94 patients with postoperative endometrial cancer were treated in our centre with the Axxent electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system. The V150 and V200 are evaluated prospectively for each plan. The mean age of patients was 65.9 years (age range 33–84 years), with different tumour staging. Of the 94 patients, 37 received exclusive adjuvant brachytherapy (25 Gy in five sessions); the remaining patients received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with a regimen of 23 sessions of 2 Gy each to the entire pelvis, followed by eBT (15 Gy in three sessions). Additionally, the absorbed doses received by the organs at risk (OAR), urinary bladder, rectum and sigmoid colon were compared with HDRBT plans, evaluating D2cc, V50% and V35%. Median follow-up was done for each of the 94 patients to assess the toxicity of the treatment: vaginal mucosa toxicity, rectal and urinary toxicity; and results are presented for acute toxicity, toxicity at 1 month after the end of treatment and follow-up after 12 months for a portion of patients according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity criteria.

Results

The doses in OAR for eBT plans were lower than that for HDRBT plans, both Ir-192 and Co-60 plans, whose doses were similar. The dose in bladder with eBT was 63.8% of the prescribed dose for D2cc versus 70.1% for HDRBT Ir-192, for V50% was 7.2% versus 12.7% and for V35% was 15.2% versus 28.2%. In rectum the D2cc was 61.2% versus 68.4%, for V50% was 7.9% versus 14.3% and for V35% was 16.7% versus 32%. Results demonstrated lower doses to OAR in all eBT plans. Acute toxicity in eBT was very low in cases of mucositis, with only one case of toxicity greater than grade 1, rectal toxicity and urinary toxicity; results at 1 month are equally good, toxicity symptoms disappeared and no relapses have occurred to date.

Conclusions

The results of treatment with the Axxent eBT unit for 94 patients are very good, as no recurrence has been observed and the toxicity of the treatment is very low. The increase in V150 and V200 has not produced an increase in vaginal mucosa toxicity, and the doses in the OAR are lower than in the plans implemented for HDRBT with Ir-192 or Co-60. eBT is a good alternative to treat endometrial cancer in centres without conventional HDR availability. To date, there are limited published studies reporting on outcomes from patients treated with eBT.