Fifty-sixth annual meeting of the American association of physicists in medicine
SU-D-19A-05: The Dosimetric Impact of Using Xoft Axxent® Electronic Brachytherapy Source TG-43 Dosimetry Parameters for Treatment with the Xoft 30 Mm Diameter Vaginal Applicator
A full TG-43 dosimetric characterization has not been performed for the Xoft Axxent ® electronic brachytherapy source (Xoft, a subsidiary of iCAD, San Jose, CA) within the Xoft 30 mm diameter vaginal applicator. Currently, dose calculations are performed using the bare-source TG-43 parameters and do not account for the presence of the applicator. This work focuses on determining the difference between the bare-source and sourcein- applicator TG-43 parameters. Both the radial dose function (RDF) and polar anisotropy function (PAF) were computationally determined for the source-in-applicator and bare-source models to determine the impact of using the bare-source dosimetry data.
MCNP5 was used to model the source and the Xoft 30 mm diameter vaginal applicator. All simulations were performed using 0.84p and 0.03e cross section libraries. All models were developed based on specifications provided by Xoft. The applicator is made of a proprietary polymer material and simulations were performed using the most conservative chemical composition. An F6 collision-kerma tally was used to determine the RDF and PAF values in water at various dwell positions. The RDF values were normalized to 2.0 cm from the source to accommodate the applicator radius. Source-in-applicator results were compared with bare-source results from this work as well as published baresource results.
For a 0 mm source pullback distance, the updated bare-source model and source-in-applicator RDF values differ by 2% at 3 cm and 4% at 5 cm. The largest PAF disagreements were observed at the distal end of the source and applicator with up to 17% disagreement at 2 cm and 8% at 8 cm. The bare-source model had RDF values within 2.6% of the published TG-43 data and PAF results within 7.2% at 2 cm.
Results indicate that notable differences exist between the bare-source and source-in-applicator TG-43 simulated parameters.
Xoft Inc. provided partial funding for this work