Purpose: The purpose of this work is threefold: First, to obtain the phase space of an electronic brachytherapy (eBT) system designed for surface skin treatments. Second, to explore the use of some efficiency enhancing (EFEN) strategies in the determination of the phase space. Third, to use the phase space previously obtained to perform a dosimetric characterization of the Esteya eBT system. Methods: The Monte Carlo study of the 69.5 kVp x-ray beam of the Esteya â unit (Elekta Brachytherapy, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) was performed with PENELOPE2014. The EFEN strategies included the use of variance reduction techniques and mixed Class II simulations, where transport parameters were fine-tuned. Four source models were studied varying the most relevant parameters characterizing the electron beam impinging the target: the energy spectrum (mono-energetic or Gaussian shaped), and the electron distribution over the focal spot (uniform or Gaussian shaped). Phase spaces obtained were analyzed to detect differences in the calculated data due to the EFEN strategy or the source configuration. Depth dose curves and absorbed dose profiles were obtained for each source model and compared to experimental data previously published. Results: In our EFEN strategy, the interaction forcing variance reduction (VRIF) technique increases efficiency by a factor~20. Tailoring the transport parameters values (C1 and C2) does not increase the efficiency in a significant way. Applying a universal cutoff energy EABS of 10 keV saves 84% of CPU time while showing negligible impact on the calculated results. Disabling the electron transport by imposing an electron energy cutoff of 70 keV (except for the target) saves an extra 8% (losing in the process 1.2% of the photons). The Gaussian energy source (FWHM = 10%, centered at the nominal kVp, homogeneous electron distribution) shows characteristic K-lines in its energy spectrum, not observed experimentally. The average photon energy using an ideal source (mono-energetic, homogeneous electron distribution) was 36.19 AE 0.09 keV, in agreement with the published measured data of 36.2 AE 0.2 keV. The use of a Gaussian-distributed electron source (mono-energetic) increases the penumbra by 50%, which is closer to the measurement results. The maximum discrepancy of the calculated percent depth dose with the corresponding measured values is 4.5% (at the phantom surface, less than 2% beyond 1 mm depth) and 5% (for the 80% of the field) in the dose profile. Our results agree with the findings published by other authors and are consistent within the expected Type A and B uncertainties. Conclusions: Our results agree with the published measurement results within the reported uncertainties. The observed differences in PDD, dose profiles, and photon spectrum come from three main sources of uncertainty: intermachine variations, measurements, and Monte Carlo calculations. It has been observed that a mono-energetic source with a Gaussian electron distribution over the focal spot is a suitable choice to reproduc...

Purpose. To estimate Type B uncertainties in absorbed-dose calculations arising from the different implementations in current state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes of low-energy photon cross-sections (<200 keV). Methods. MC simulations are carried out using three codes widely used in the low-energy domain: PENELOPE-2018, EGSnrc, and MCNP. Three dosimetry-relevant quantities are considered: mass energy-absorption coefficients for water, air, graphite, and their respective ratios; absorbed dose; and photon-fluence spectra. The absorbed dose and the photon-fluence spectra are scored in a spherical water phantom of 15 cm radius. Benchmark simulations using similar cross-sections have been performed. The differences observed between these quantities when different cross-sections are considered are taken to be a good estimator for the corresponding Type B uncertainties. Results. A conservative Type B uncertainty for the absorbed dose (k = 2) of 1.2%–1.7% (<50 keV), 0.6%–1.2% (50–100 keV), and 0.3% (100–200 keV) is estimated. The photon-fluence spectrum does not present clinically relevant differences that merit considering additional Type B uncertainties except for energies below 25 keV, where a Type B uncertainty of 0.5% is obtained. Below 30 keV, mass energy-absorption coefficients show Type B uncertainties (k = 2) of about 1.5% (water and air), and 2% (graphite), diminishing in all materials for larger energies and reaching values about 1% (40–50 keV) and 0.5% (50–75 keV). With respect to their ratios, the only significant Type B uncertainties are observed in the case of the water-to-graphite ratio for energies below 30 keV, being about 0.7% (k = 2). Conclusions. In contrast with the intermediate (about 500 keV) or high (about 1 MeV) energy domains, Type B uncertainties due to the different cross-sections implementation cannot be considered subdominant with respect to Type A uncertainties or even to other sources of Type B uncertainties (tally volume averaging, manufacturing tolerances, etc). Therefore, the values reported here should be accommodated within the uncertainty budget in low-energy photon dosimetry studies.

Three different correction factors for measurements with the parallel-plate ionization chamber PTW T34013 on the Esteya electronic brachytherapy unit have been investigated. This chamber type is recommended by AAPM TG-253 for depth-dose measurements in the 69.5 kV x-ray beam generated by the Esteya unit. Monte Carlo simulations using the PENELOPE-2018 system were performed to determine the absorbed dose deposited in water and in the chamber sensitive volume at different depths with a Type A uncertainty smaller than 0.1%. Chamber-to-chamber differences have been explored performing measurements using three different chambers. The range of conical applicators available, from 10 to 30 mm in diameter, has been explored. Using a depth-independent global chamber perturbation correction factor without a shift of the effective point of measurement yielded differences between the absorbed dose to water and the corrected absorbed dose in the sensitive volume of the chamber of up to 1% and 0.6% for the 10 mm and 30 mm applicators, respectively. Calculations using a depth-dependent perturbation factor, including or excluding a shift of the effective point of measurement, resulted in depth-dose differences of about ± 0.5% or less for both applicators. The smallest depth-dose differences were obtained when a shift of the effective point of measurement was implemented, being displaced 0.4 mm towards the center of the sensitive volume of the chamber. The correction factors were obtained with combined uncertainties of 0.4% (k = 2). Uncertainties due to chamber-to-chamber differences are found to be lower than 2%. The results emphasize the relevance of carrying out detailed Monte Carlo studies for each electronic brachytherapy device and ionization chamber used for its dosimetry.

Purpose To evaluate the use of the absorbed depth‐dose as a surrogate of the half‐value layer in the calibration of a high‐dose‐rate electronic brachytherapy (eBT) equipment. The effect of the manufacturing tolerances and the absorbed depth‐dose measurement uncertainties in the calibration process are also addressed. Methods The eBT system Esteya® (Elekta Brachytherapy, Veenendaal, The Netherlands) has been chosen as a proof‐of‐concept to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed method, using its 10 mm diameter applicator. Two calibration protocols recommended by the AAPM (TG‐61) and the IAEA (TRS‐398) for low‐energy photon beams were evaluated. The required Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were carried out using PENELOPE2014. Several MC simulations were performed modifying the flattening filter thickness and the x‐ray tube potential, generating one absorbed depth‐dose curve and a complete set of parameters required in the beam calibration (i.e., HVL, backscatter factor (Bw), and mass energy‐absorption coefficient ratios (µen/ρ)water,air), for each configuration. Fits between each parameter and some absorbed dose‐ratios calculated from the absorbed depth‐dose curves were established. The effect of the manufacturing tolerances and the absorbed dose‐ratio uncertainties over the calibration process were evaluated by propagating their values over the fitting function, comparing the overall calibration uncertainties against reference values. We proposed four scenarios of uncertainty (from 0% to 10%) in the dose‐ratio determination to evaluate its effect in the calibration process. Results The manufacturing tolerance of the flattening filter (±0.035 mm) produces a change of 1.4% in the calculated HVL and a negligible effect over the Bw, (µen/ρ)water,air, and the overall calibration uncertainty. A potential variation of 14% of the electron energies due to manufacturing tolerances in the x‐ray tube (69.5 ± ~10 keV) generates a variation of 10% in the HVL. However, this change has a negligible effect over the Bw and (µen/ρ)water,air, adding 0.1% to the overall calibration uncertainty. The fitting functions reproduce the data with an uncertainty (k = 2) below 1%, 0.5%, and 0.4% for the HVL, Bw, and (µen/ρ)water,air, respectively. The four studied absorbed dose‐ratio uncertainty scenarios add, in the worst‐case scenario, 0.2% to the overall uncertainty of the calibration process. Conclusions This work shows the feasibility of using the absorbed depth‐dose curve in the calibration of an eBT system with minimal loss of precision.