Mark J. Rivard1, Wayne M. Butler, Larry A. DeWerd, M. Saiful Huq, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, Ali S. Meigooni, Christopher S. Melhus, Michael G. Mitch, Ravinder Nath, Jeffrey F. Williamson
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA. [email protected] Tóm tắt
Since publication of the 2004 update to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group No. 43 Report (TG‐43U1), several new low‐energy photon‐emitting brachytherapy sources have become available. Many of these sources have satisfied the AAPM prerequisites for routine clinical use as of January 10, 2005, and are posted on the Joint AAPM/RPC Brachytherapy Seed Registry. Consequently, the AAPM has prepared this supplement to the 2004 AAPM TG‐43 update. This paper presents the AAPM‐approved consensus datasets for these sources, and includes the following sources: Amersham model 6733, Draximage model LS‐1, Implant Sciences model 3500, IBt model 1251L, IsoAid model IAI‐125A, Mentor model SL‐125/SH‐125, and SourceTech Medical model STM1251. The Best Medical model 2335 source is also included. While the methodology used to determine these data sets is identical to that published in the AAPM TG‐43U1 report, additional information and discussion are presented here on some questions that arose since the publication of the TG‐43U1 report. Specifically, details of interpolation and extrapolation methods are described further, new methodologies are recommended, and example calculations are provided. Despite these changes, additions, and clarifications, the overall methodology, the procedures for developing consensus data sets, and the dose calculation formalism largely remain the same as in the TG‐43U1 report. Thus, the AAPM recommends that the consensus data sets and resultant source‐specific dose‐rate distributions included in this supplement be adopted by all end users for clinical treatment planning of low‐energy photon‐emitting brachytherapy sources. Adoption of these recommendations may result in changes to patient dose calculations, and these changes should be carefully evaluated and reviewed with the radiation oncologist prior to implementation of the current protocol.
