Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Energy-based source strength metrics may find use with model-based dose calculation algorithms, but no instruments exist that can measure the energy emitted from low-dose rate (LDR) sources. This work developed a calorimetric technique for measuring the power emitted from encapsulated low-dose rate, photon-emitting brachytherapy sources. This quantity is called emitted power (EP). The measurement methodology, instrument design and performance, and EP measurements made with the calorimeter are presented in this work. METHODS:A calorimeter operating with a liquid helium thermal sink was developed to measure EP from LDR brachytherapy sources. The calorimeter employed an electrical substitution technique to determine the power emitted from the source. The calorimeter's performance and thermal system were characterized. EP measurements were made using four (125)I sources with air-kerma strengths ranging from 2.3 to 5.6 U and corresponding EPs of 0.39-0.79 μW, respectively. Three Best Medical 2301 sources and one Oncura 6711 source were measured. EP was also computed by converting measured air-kerma strengths to EPs through Monte Carlo-derived conversion factors. The measured EP and derived EPs were compared to determine the accuracy of the calorimeter measurement technique. RESULTS:The calorimeter had a noise floor of 1-3 nW and a repeatability of 30-60 nW. The calorimeter was stable to within 5 nW over a 12 h measurement window. All measured values agreed with derived EPs to within 10%, with three of the four sources agreeing to within 4%. Calorimeter measurements had uncertainties ranging from 2.6% to 4.5% at the k = 1 level. The values of the derived EPs had uncertainties ranging from 2.9% to 3.6% at the k = 1 level. CONCLUSIONS:A calorimeter capable of measuring the EP from LDR sources has been developed and validated for (125)I sources with EPs between 0.43 and 0.79 μW.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate why dose-rate constants for (125)I and (103)Pd seeds computed using the spectroscopic technique, Λ spec, differ from those computed with standard Monte Carlo (MC) techniques. A potential cause of these discrepancies is the spectroscopic technique's use of approximations of the true fluence distribution leaving the source, φ full. In particular, the fluence distribution used in the spectroscopic technique, φ spec, approximates the spatial, angular, and energy distributions of φ full. This work quantified the extent to which each of these approximations affects the accuracy of Λ spec. Additionally, this study investigated how the simplified water-only model used in the spectroscopic technique impacts the accuracy of Λ spec. METHODS:Dose-rate constants as described in the AAPM TG-43U1 report, Λ full, were computed with MC simulations using the full source geometry for each of 14 different (125)I and 6 different (103)Pd source models. In addition, the spectrum emitted along the perpendicular bisector of each source was simulated in vacuum using the full source model and used to compute Λ spec. Λ spec was compared to Λ full to verify the discrepancy reported by Rodriguez and Rogers. Using MC simulations, a phase space of the fluence leaving the encapsulation of each full source model was created. The spatial and angular distributions of φ full were extracted from the phase spaces and were qualitatively compared to those used by φ spec. Additionally, each phase space was modified to reflect one of the approximated distributions (spatial, angular, or energy) used by φ spec. The dose-rate constant resulting from using approximated distribution i, Λ approx,i, was computed using the modified phase space and compared to Λ full. For each source, this process was repeated for each approximation in order to determine which approximations used in the spectroscopic technique affect the accuracy of Λ spec. RESULTS:For all sources studied, the angular and spatial distributions of φ full were more complex than the distributions used in φ spec. Differences between Λ spec and Λ full ranged from -0.6% to +6.4%, confirming the discrepancies found by Rodriguez and Rogers. The largest contribution to the discrepancy was the assumption of isotropic emission in φ spec, which caused differences in Λ of up to +5.3% relative to Λ full. Use of the approximated spatial and energy distributions caused smaller average discrepancies in Λ of -0.4% and +0.1%, respectively. The water-only model introduced an average discrepancy in Λ of -0.4%. CONCLUSIONS:The approximations used in φ spec caused discrepancies between Λ approx,i and Λ full of up to 7.8%. With the exception of the energy distribution, the approximations used in φ spec contributed to this discrepancy for all source models studied. To improve the accuracy of Λ spec, the spatial and angular distributions of φ full could be measured, with the measurements replacing the approximated distributions. The methodology used in this work could be used to determine the resolution that such measurements would require by computing the dose-rate constants from phase spaces modified to reflect φ full binned at different spatial and angular resolutions.