4.3 Article

Development of an HDR-BT QA tool for source position verification

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 84-89

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13063

Keywords

applicator modeling; applicator offset; HDR; QA phantom; source position

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [15K19207]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K19207] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) quality assurance (QA) tool for verification of source positions, and to report on its effectiveness. Methods We fabricated a cuboid phantom measuring 30 x 30x3 cm(3) with spaces to embed Fletcher-Williamson tandem and ovoid applicators. Lead-based, cylindrically shaped radiopaque markers, which scatter radiation and blacken the Gafchromic (R) RTQA2 films placed on the applicators, were inserted into the phantom to determine the applicator tip and reference source positions. A three-dimensional image-guided brachytherapy (3D-IGBT) plan was generated, and the source positions on the film and radiation treatment planning system (RTPS) were verified with the tool. Source position errors were evaluated as the distance in the applicator axis direction between the source position and the center position of two radiopaque marker pairs. Results Source position errors on the film and RTPS were in good agreement with one another and were all within 0.5 mm for all applicators. Offset values of each applicator were in good agreement with the value determined in treatment planning (6 mm). The expanded measurement uncertainty of our QA tool was estimated to be 0.87 mm, with a coverage factor k of 2. Conclusions Our new HDR-BT QA tool developed for comprehensive source position verification will be useful for cross checking actual source positions and planned source positions on the RTPS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available