Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 19, 2026

Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Monte Carlo calculation of the dose perturbations in a dual-source HDR/PDR afterloader treatment unit
Charles-Antoine Collins-Fekete1, Mathieu Plamondon2, Frank Verhaegen3
1Département de physique, de génie physique et d'optique et Centre de recherche sur le cancer, Université Laval, Québec, Canada; Département de radio-oncologie et CRCHU de Québec, CHU de Québec, Québec, Canada.
Purpose:
Currently, there are high dose rate afterloaders available that can drive two different radioactive sources simultaneously. The source-source and source-cable attenuations are not taken into account by current planning systems. The purpose of this work is to characterize these effects and their overall impact on clinically relevant metrics.
Methods And Materials:
A (192)Ir ((169)Yb) Flexitron source is modeled within a Monte Carlo code, and its water dose distribution is evaluated. A second source (cable) is placed parallel at various distances to quantify the dose perturbations. The dual-source setup is then transposed to clinical prostate plans (n = 11). Each plan D90 is compared to the single-source D90. The worst-case scenario (two sources traveling in closely located positions) establishes the upper bounds of the deviations. Two setups are considered with sources constrained in catheter pairs or freely distributed. A metric proportional to the dwell times and R(-2) (where R is the intersource separation) helps determine the source position in each configuration.
Results:
The dose profiles vs. R(-2) (3-20 mm) show a maximal dose reduction effect of 65% (25%) for (169)Yb ((192)Ir) at small distances. A shadow region with at least 10% dose difference extends up to 10 cm. A similar study with a steel drive cable shows similar behavior with a maximal decrease of 10% (3%) under irradiation of a (169)Yb ((192)Ir) source. The relative D90 difference with the single source setup is 2.3% on average, up to 3.7%. It is obtained by superimposing the contributions from catheter pairs in the dual-source loading.
Conclusion:
Overall deviations observed in D90 compared to a single source setup are not significant for all cases studied.
More Related Videos
07:57Positron Emission Tomography-based Dose Painting Radiation Therapy in a Glioblastoma Rat Model using the Small Animal Radiation Research Platform
Published on: March 24, 2022
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Determination of Multiple Dosing Parameters: Loading and Maintenance Doses
Dose Size and Dosing Frequency: Determination Methods
Biological Effects of Radiation