Suitability of microDiamond detectors for the determination of absorbed dose to water around high‐dose‐rate 192Ir brachytherapy sources

PurposeExperimental dosimetry of high‐dose‐rate (HDR) 192Ir brachytherapy (BT) sources is complicated due to high dose and dose‐rate gradients, and softening of photon energy spectrum with depth. A single crystal synthetic diamond detector microDiamond (PTW 60019, Freiburg, Germany) has a small active volume, high sensitivity, direct readout, and nearly water‐equivalent active volume. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the suitability of microDiamond detectors for the determination of absorbed dose to water around HDR 192Ir BT sources. Three microDiamond detectors were used, allowing for the comparison of their properties.MethodsIn‐phantom measurements were performed using microSelectron and VariSource iX HDR 192Ir BT treatment units. Their treatment planning systems (TPSs), Oncentra (v. 4.3) and BrachyVision (v. 13.6), respectively, were used to create irradiation plans for a cubic PMMA phantom with the microDiamond positioned at one of three source‐to‐detector distances (SDDs) (1.5, 2.5, and 5.5 cm) at a time. The source was stepped in increments of 0.5 cm over a total length of 6 cm to yield absorbed dose of 2 Gy at the nominal reference‐point of the detector. Detectors were calibrated in 60Co beam in terms of absorbed dose to water, and Monte Carlo (MC) calculated beam quality correction factors were applied to account for absorbed‐dose energy dependence. Phantom correction factors were applied to account for differences in dimensions between the measurement phantom and a water phantom used for absorbed dose calculations made with a TPS. The same measurements were made with all three of the detectors. Additionally, dose‐rate dependence and stability of the detectors were evaluated in 60Co beam.ResultsThe percentage differences between experimentally determined and TPS‐calculated absorbed doses to water were from −1.3% to +2.9%. The values agreed to within experimental uncertainties, which were from 1.9% to 4.3% (k = 2) depending on the detector, SDD and treatment delivery unit. No dose‐rate or intrinsic energy dependence corrections were applied. All microDiamonds were comparable in terms of preirradiation dose, stability of the readings and energy response, and showed a good agreement.ConclusionsThe results indicate that the microDiamond is potentially suitable for the determination of absorbed dose to water around HDR 192Ir BT sources and may be used for independent verification of TPS's calculations, as well as for QA measurements of HDR 192Ir BT treatment delivery units at clinical sites.