Comparison of calibration procedures for 192Ir high-dose rate brachytherapy sources

Baltas, D; Geramani, K; Ioannidis, GT; Hierholz, K; Rogge, B; Kolotas, C; Muller-Sievers, K; Milickovic, N; Kober, B; Zamboglou, N

dc.contributor.author	Baltas, D	en
dc.contributor.author	Geramani, K	en
dc.contributor.author	Ioannidis, GT	en
dc.contributor.author	Hierholz, K	en
dc.contributor.author	Rogge, B	en
dc.contributor.author	Kolotas, C	en
dc.contributor.author	Muller-Sievers, K	en
dc.contributor.author	Milickovic, N	en
dc.contributor.author	Kober, B	en
dc.contributor.author	Zamboglou, N	en
dc.date.accessioned	2014-03-01T01:14:27Z
dc.date.available	2014-03-01T01:14:27Z
dc.date.issued	1999	en
dc.identifier.issn	03603016	en
dc.identifier.uri	https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/13081
dc.subject	192Ir source calibration	en
dc.subject	HDR brachytherapy	en
dc.subject	Solid-state phantoms	en
dc.subject	Well-type ionization chambers	en
dc.subject.other	cesium 137	en
dc.subject.other	iridium 192	en
dc.subject.other	article	en
dc.subject.other	brachytherapy	en
dc.subject.other	calibration	en
dc.subject.other	intermethod comparison	en
dc.subject.other	ionization chamber	en
dc.subject.other	phantom	en
dc.subject.other	priority journal	en
dc.subject.other	radiation dose	en
dc.subject.other	Brachytherapy	en
dc.subject.other	Calibration	en
dc.subject.other	Iridium Radioisotopes	en
dc.subject.other	Phantoms, Imaging	en
dc.subject.other	Physics	en
dc.subject.other	Radiopharmaceuticals	en
dc.subject.other	Sensitivity and Specificity	en
dc.title	Comparison of calibration procedures for 192Ir high-dose rate brachytherapy sources	en
heal.type	journalArticle	en
heal.identifier.primary	10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00423-4	en
heal.identifier.secondary	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00423-4	en
heal.publicationDate	1999	en
heal.abstract	Purpose: To compare the efficacy of different calibration procedures for 192Ir high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy sources and to determine their suitability in clinical practice. In addition the manufacturer's calibration is compared with our experimental measurements so that the accuracy of the source strength on the manufacturer certificate which is supplied with each new 192Ir source can be accessed. Methods and Materials: We compared three types of calibration system: well-type chambers (HDR-1000 and SDS), cylindrical phantom, and plate phantom. The total number of measurements we obtained was 365. The number of sources used for the calibration procedure comparison was 20 and the number used for comparison with the manufacturer's calibration was 46. This study was made during the period 1989-1997. Also, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) calibrated one of our sources using their PTB protocol so that the results could be compared with our own. Results: The sensitivity of each system on scattering from the room walls was studied. It was found that different minimum lateral distances from the walls were required for the different systems tested: 15 cm and 25 cm for the well- type chambers, 75 cm for the cylindrical phantom, and 13 cm for the plate phantom. The minimum thickness required to reach phantom scattering saturation for the plate phantom setup is 24 cm. The influence of the applicator material used in the calibration setup was found to be 1.7% for the stainless steel dosimetry applicator compared to the plastic 5F applicator. The accuracy of source positioning within the applicator can lead to dosimetric errors of ±1.2% for the radial distance of 8.0 cm used with both solid phantoms. The change in the response for both well-type chambers was only 0.1% for changes in the source position within ±7.5 mm around the response peak. Good agreement was found between all dosimetry systems included in our study. Taking the HDR-1000 well-type chamber results as a reference, we observed percentage root mean square (RMS) values of 0.11% for the SDS well-type chamber, 0.44% for the cylindrical, and 0.60% for the plate phantom setup. A comparison of our results using the cylindrical phantom with those of the manufacturer showed a percentage RMS value of 3.3% with a percentage fractional error range of -13.0% to +6.0%. The comparison of our calibration results with those of PTB gave deviations less than 0.4% for all systems. Conclusions: Our results have shown that with careful use of all calibration system protocols an accurate determination of source strength can be obtained. However, the manufacturer's calibration is not accurate enough on its own, and it should be mandatory for clinics to always measure the source strength of newly delivered 192Ir brachytherapy sources. The influence of the applicator material, metal or plastic, should always be taken into account.	en
heal.journalName	International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1016/S0360-3016(98)00423-4	en
dc.identifier.volume	43	en
dc.identifier.issue	3	en
dc.identifier.spage	653	en
dc.identifier.epage	661	en