The Fletcher Suit Delclos (FSD) ovoids employed in intracavitary brachytherapy (ICB) for cervical cancer contain shields to reduce dose to the bladder and rectum. Many treatment planning systems (TPS) do not include the shields and other ovoid structures in the dose calculation. Instead, TPSs calculate dose by summing the dose contributions from the individual sources and ignoring ovoid structures such as the shields. The goal of this work was to calculate the dose distribution with Monte Carlo around a Selectron FSD ovoid and compare these calculations with radiochromic film (RCF) and normoxic polymer gel dosimetry. Monte Carlo calculations were performed with MCNPX 2.5.c for a single Selectron FSD ovoid with and without shields. RCF measurements were performed in a plane parallel to and displaced laterally 1.25 cm from the long axis of the ovoid. MAGIC gel measurements were performed in a polymethylmethacrylate phantom. RCF and MAGIC gel were irradiated with four 33 microGy m2 h(-1) Cs-137 pellets for a period of 24 h. Results indicated that MCNPX calculated dose to within +/- 2% or 2 mm for 98% of points compared with RCF measurements and to within +/- 3% or 3 mm for 98% of points compared with MAGIC gel measurements. It is concluded that MCNPX 2.5.c can calculate dose accurately in the presence of the ovoid shields, that RCF and MAGIC gel can demonstrate the effect of ovoid shields on the dose distribution and the ovoid shields reduce the dose by as much as 50%.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate similarities and differences in quality assurance (QA) guidelines for a conventional diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) system and a MR simulator (MR‐SIM) system used for radiotherapy. Methods In this study, we compared QA testing guidelines from the American College of Radiology (ACR) MR Quality Control (MR QC) Manual to the QA section of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 284 report (TG‐284). Differences and similarities were identified in testing scope, frequency, and tolerances. QA testing results from an ACR accredited clinical diagnostic MR system following ACR MR QC instructions were then evaluated using TG‐284 tolerances. Results Five tests from the ACR MR QC Manual were not included in TG‐284. Five new tests were identified for MR‐SIM systems in TG‐284 and pertained exclusively to the external laser positioning system of MR‐SIM systems. “Low‐contrast object detectability” (LCD), “table motion smoothness and accuracy,” “transmitter gain,” and “geometric accuracy” tests differed between the two QA guides. Tighter tolerances were required in TG‐284 for “table motion smoothness and accuracy” and “low contrast object detectability.” “Transmitter gain” tolerance was dependent on initial baseline measurements, and TG‐284 required that geometric accuracy be tested over a larger field of view than the ACR testing method. All tests from the ACR MR QC Manual for a conventional MR system passed ACR tolerances. The T2‐weighted image acquired with ACR sequences failed the 40‐spoke requirement from TG‐284, transmitter gain was at the 5% tolerance of TG‐284, and geometric accuracy could not be evaluated because of required equipment differences. Table motion passed both TG‐284 and ACR required tolerances. Conclusion Our study evaluated QA guidelines for an MR‐SIM and demonstrated the additional QA requirements of a clinical diagnostic MR system to be used as an MR‐SIM in radiotherapy as recommended by TG‐284.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract