Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.J. F. Williamson et al., “Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on interstitial source calibration and dosimetry: Implications for dose specification and prescription,” Med. Phys. 27, 634642 (2000).
2.S. M. Seltzer et al., “New national air-kerma-strength standards for and brachytherapy seeds,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 108, 337358 (2003).
3.R. Nath et al., “Measurement of dose-rate constant for seeds with air kerma strength calibration based upon a primary national standard,” Med. Phys. 27, 655658 (2000).
4.J. F. Williamson, “Monte Carlo modeling of the transverse-axis dose distribution of the model 200 interstitial brachytherapy source,” Med. Phys. 27, 643654 (2000).
5.D. Beyer et al., “American Brachytherapy Society recommendations for clinical implementation of NIST-1999 standards for (103)palladium brachytherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys.47, 273275 (2000).
6.M. J. Rivard et al., “Update of AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: A revised AAPM protocol for brachytherapy dose calculations,” Med. Phys. 31, 633674 (2004).
7.J. I. Monroe and J. F. Williamson, “Monte Carlo-aided dosimetry of the theragenics TheraSeed model 200 103Pd interstitial brachytherapy seed,” Med. Phys. 29, 609621 (2002).
8.J. F. Williamson et al., “Guidance to users of Nycomed Amersham and North American Scientific, Inc., I-125 interstitial sources: Dosimetry and calibration changes: recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Low-Energy Seed Dosimetry,” Med. Phys. 26, 570573 (1999).
9.R. Nath et al., “Dosimetry of interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 43. American Association of Physicists in Medicine,” Med. Phys. 22, 209234 (1995).
10.B. R. Prestidge et al., “Posttreatment biopsy results following interstitial brachytherapy in early-stage prostate cancer,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 37, 3139 (1997).
11.J. Sharkey et al., “Minimally invasive treatment for localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate: Review of 1048 patients treated with ultrasound-guided palladium-103 brachytherapy,” J. Endourol14, 343350 (2000).
12.T. P. Loftus, “Exposure standardization of Iodine-125 seeds used for brachytherapy,” J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 89, 295303 (1984).
13.J. F. Williamson et al., “On the use of apparent activity (Aapp) for treatment planning of 125I and 103Pd interstitial brachytherapy sources: Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine radiation therapy committee subcommittee on low-energy brachytherapy source dosimetry,” Med. Phys. 26, 25292530 (1999).
14.M. P. Unterweger et al., “Radionuclide Half-life Measurements (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2003).
15.A. S. Meigooni, S. Sabnis, and R. Nath, “Dosimetry of Palladium-103 brachytherapy sources for permanent implants,” Endocurietherapy/Hyperthermia Oncology 6, 107117 (1990).
16.S.-T. Chiu-Tsao and L. L. Anderson, “Thermoluminescent dosimetry for seeds (model 200) in solid water phantom,” Med. Phys. 18, 449452 (1991).
17.N. Yue and R. Nath, “Experimental determination of the anisotropy function for the model 200 103Pd ‘light seed’ and derivation of the anisotropy constant based upon the linear quadratic model,” Med. Phys. 29, 11201129 (2002).
18.J. F. Williamson, “Dosimetric characteristics of the DRAXIMAGE model LS-1 1-125 interstitial brachytherapy source design: A Monte Carlo investigation,” Med. Phys. 29, 509521 (2002).
19.W. S. Bice, Jr. et al., “Clinical impact of implementing the Recommendations of AAPM Task Group 43 on Permanent Prostate Brachytherapy Using 125I,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 40, 12371241 (1998).
20.W. M. Butler et al., “Comparison of seed loading approaches in prostate brachytherapy,” Med. Phys. 27, 381392 (2000).
21.C. C. Ling et al., “Physical Dosimetry of seeds of a new design for interstitial implant,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 9, 17471752 (1983).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



In March 2004, the recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) on the interstitial brachytherapy dosimetry using and were reported in Medical Physics [TG-43 Update: Rivard et al. , 31, 633–674 (2004)]. These recommendations include some minor changes in the dose-calculation formalism and a major update of the dosimetry parameters for eight widely used interstitial brachytherapy sources. A full implementation of these recommendations could result in unintended changes in delivered dose without corresponding revisions in the prescribed dose. Because most published clinical experience with permanent brachytherapy is based upon two widely used source models, the Model 6711 and Model 200 sources, in this report we present an analysis of the dosimetric impact of the 2004 TG-43 dosimetry parameters on the history of dose delivery for these two source models. Our analysis indicates that the currently recommended prescribed dose of 125 Gy for Model 200 implants planned using previously recommended dosimetry parameters [AAPM dose prescription: Williamson et al. , Med. Phys.27, 634–642 (2000)] results in a delivered dose of 120 Gy according to dose calculations based on the 2004 TG-43 update. Further, delivered doses prior to October 1997 varied from 113 to 119 Gy for a prescribed dose of 115 Gy compared to 124 Gy estimated by the AAPM 2000 report. For implants using Model 6711 seeds, there are no significant changes (less than 2%). Practicing physicians should take these results into account when selecting the clinically appropriate prescribed dose for interstitial implant patients following implementation of the 2004 TG-43 update dose-calculation recommendations. The AAPM recommends that the radiation oncology community review this report and consider whether the currently recommended dose level (125 Gy) needs to be revised.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd