Erratum: “Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: Joint recommendations by the AAPM and GEC‐ESTRO” [Med. Phys. Vol 44 (9), e297–e338 (2017)]
2018; Wiley; Volume: 45; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/mp.12728
ISSN2473-4209
AutoresMark J. Rivard, Facundo Ballester, Wayne M. Butler, Larry A. DeWerd, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, Ali S. Meigooni, Christopher S. Melhus, Michael G. Mitch, Ravinder Nath, P. Papagiannis,
Tópico(s)Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
ResumoMedical PhysicsVolume 45, Issue 2 p. 971-974 ErratumFree Access Erratum: "Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: Joint recommendations by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO" [Med. Phys. Vol 44 (9), e297–e338 (2017)] This article corrects the following: Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: Joint recommendations by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO Mark J. Rivard, Facundo Ballester, Wayne M. Butler, Larry A. DeWerd, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, Ali S. Meigooni, Christopher S. Melhus, Michael G. Mitch, Ravinder Nath, Panagiotis Papagiannis, Volume 44Issue 9Medical Physics pages: e297-e338 First Published online: August 8, 2017 Mark J. Rivard, Corresponding Author Mark J. Rivard markjrivard@gmail.com Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02111 USAAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: markjrivard@gmail.com.Search for more papers by this authorFacundo Ballester, Facundo Ballester Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics, University of Valencia, Burjassot, 46100 SpainSearch for more papers by this authorWayne M. Butler, Wayne M. Butler Schiffler Cancer Center, Wheeling Hospital, Wheeling, WV, 26003 USASearch for more papers by this authorLarry A. DeWerd, Larry A. DeWerd Accredited Dosimetry and Calibration Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706 USASearch for more papers by this authorGeoffrey S. Ibbott, Geoffrey S. Ibbott Department of Radiation Physics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030 USASearch for more papers by this authorAli S. Meigooni, Ali S. Meigooni Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, 89169 USASearch for more papers by this authorChristopher S. Melhus, Christopher S. Melhus Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02111 USASearch for more papers by this authorMichael G. Mitch, Michael G. Mitch Radiation Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899 USASearch for more papers by this authorRavinder Nath, Ravinder Nath Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510 USASearch for more papers by this authorPanagiotis Papagiannis, Panagiotis Papagiannis Medical Physics Laboratory, Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, GreeceSearch for more papers by this author Mark J. Rivard, Corresponding Author Mark J. Rivard markjrivard@gmail.com Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02111 USAAuthor to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: markjrivard@gmail.com.Search for more papers by this authorFacundo Ballester, Facundo Ballester Department of Atomic, Molecular and Nuclear Physics, University of Valencia, Burjassot, 46100 SpainSearch for more papers by this authorWayne M. Butler, Wayne M. Butler Schiffler Cancer Center, Wheeling Hospital, Wheeling, WV, 26003 USASearch for more papers by this authorLarry A. DeWerd, Larry A. DeWerd Accredited Dosimetry and Calibration Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706 USASearch for more papers by this authorGeoffrey S. Ibbott, Geoffrey S. Ibbott Department of Radiation Physics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 77030 USASearch for more papers by this authorAli S. Meigooni, Ali S. Meigooni Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, 89169 USASearch for more papers by this authorChristopher S. Melhus, Christopher S. Melhus Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, 02111 USASearch for more papers by this authorMichael G. Mitch, Michael G. Mitch Radiation Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899 USASearch for more papers by this authorRavinder Nath, Ravinder Nath Department of Therapeutic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 06510 USASearch for more papers by this authorPanagiotis Papagiannis, Panagiotis Papagiannis Medical Physics Laboratory, Medical School, University of Athens, Athens, GreeceSearch for more papers by this author First published: 02 January 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12728Citations: 4AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Introduction In the initially published version of Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report (TG-43U1S2),1 some of the tables provided for quality assurance (QA) of dose rate per unit source strength (cGy h−1 U−1) were flawed as explained below. These QA tables serve for comparison of the dose rate per unit source strength as necessary for commissioning a brachytherapy source within a treatment planning system. Corrected tables and reasons for the changes are provided below: Table III: Data in this table on dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the BEBIG model S17plus 125I source were erroneously reproduced from consensus data. The latter were also mistakenly determined with L = 0.346 cm instead of L = 0.34 cm. This affected consensus data at small distances due to the error in the determination of corresponding geometry function values. Table VI: Data in this table on dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the Oncura model 9011 125I source contained small differences from consensus data at large distances and small angles, which arose from interpolation errors due to the rounding of small numbers. Table VII: Data in this table on dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the Theragenics model AgX100 125I source contained results at r = 0.1 cm. However, candidate data were not reported at 0.1 cm, and thus the consensus data were erroneous. Table XII: Data in this table on dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the IsoRay model CS-1 Rev2 131Cs source were erroneously reproduced from consensus data. Table XIV: Data in this table on dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the BEBIG model S17plus 125I source were mistakenly determined with L = 0.346 cm instead of L = 0.34 cm. This affected consensus data at small distances due to the error in the determination of the corresponding geometry function values. Table AX: Data in this table on CONF(r, θ) for the IBt model 1031L 103Pd source contained a formatting error, values of zero were given for some positions (θ ≤ 20°) located within the seed at r = 0.1 cm. We apologize for any confusion these errors may have caused, and we thank Peter Bownes for identifying the errors in Table 7. (see Tables 3, 6, 7, 12, 14, 10A) Table 3. Dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the BEBIG model S17plus 125I source using the 2D formalism of Eq. (1) from the 2004 AAPM TG-43U1 report Polar angle θ (°) r (cm) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 5 7 10 0 6.51 0.959 0.472 0.280 0.1350 0.0779 0.0315 0.00768 0.00234 0.000522 2 6.54 0.976 0.508 0.337 0.1746 0.0989 0.0385 0.00891 0.00260 0.000535 5 7.29 1.691 0.788 0.444 0.1942 0.1039 0.0389 0.00879 0.00261 0.000530 7 10.15 1.823 0.798 0.453 0.1997 0.1067 0.0400 0.00895 0.00266 0.000541 10 14.60 2.03 0.894 0.503 0.219 0.1156 0.0428 0.00942 0.00277 0.000557 15 19.02 2.59 1.095 0.603 0.253 0.1314 0.0476 0.01029 0.00296 0.000591 20 22.1 3.07 1.266 0.685 0.283 0.1450 0.0516 0.01100 0.00314 0.000620 25 22.9 3.43 1.401 0.753 0.306 0.1558 0.0548 0.01155 0.00328 0.000646 30 22.5 3.70 1.506 0.805 0.326 0.1648 0.0576 0.01195 0.00340 0.000666 40 20.0 4.03 1.653 0.881 0.354 0.1780 0.0617 0.01272 0.00359 0.000699 50 16.91 4.19 1.745 0.932 0.373 0.1874 0.0647 0.01327 0.00372 0.000724 60 15.92 4.20 1.798 0.966 0.387 0.1940 0.0668 0.01365 0.00383 0.000743 70 15.20 3.97 1.802 0.977 0.394 0.1983 0.0683 0.01393 0.00391 0.000754 80 14.76 3.94 1.728 0.947 0.394 0.1985 0.0686 0.01402 0.00393 0.000762 90 14.56 3.93 1.726 0.940 0.382 0.1927 0.0669 0.01379 0.00386 0.000752 Table 6. Dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the Oncura model 9011 125I source using the 2D formalism of Eq. (1) from the 2004 AAPM TG-43U1 report Polar angle θ (°) r (cm) 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.7 1 2 3 5 7 10 0 3.71 0.878 0.494 0.271 0.0736 0.0297 0.00723 0.00220 0.000447 2 4.01 0.985 0.625 0.347 0.0874 0.0335 0.00764 0.00228 0.000468 5 5.81 1.210 0.647 0.339 0.0856 0.0332 0.00765 0.00229 0.000475 7 6.77 1.324 0.714 0.372 0.0921 0.0351 0.00800 0.00238 0.000488 10 9.98 1.732 0.891 0.445 0.1042 0.0387 0.00863 0.00253 0.000517 15 370 13.84 2.38 1.167 0.560 0.1227 0.0444 0.00960 0.00277 0.000555 20 261 15.81 2.87 1.386 0.651 0.1377 0.0488 0.01036 0.00296 0.000588 25 191.2 16.72 3.20 1.546 0.721 0.1494 0.0525 0.01098 0.00312 0.000617 30 151.8 17.07 3.43 1.660 0.772 0.1586 0.0553 0.01149 0.00325 0.000640 40 110.2 16.93 3.71 1.810 0.842 0.1714 0.0594 0.01223 0.00344 0.000672 50 89.3 16.34 3.86 1.899 0.886 0.1798 0.0621 0.01273 0.00357 0.000698 60 77.5 15.52 3.93 1.953 0.915 0.1856 0.0640 0.01308 0.00366 0.000717 70 70.7 15.13 3.95 1.981 0.932 0.1893 0.0652 0.01331 0.00373 0.000724 80 67.2 14.89 3.92 1.976 0.937 0.1910 0.0658 0.01343 0.00375 0.000731 90 66.1 14.82 3.93 1.978 0.933 0.1901 0.0656 0.01341 0.00376 0.000733 Table 7. Dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the Theragenics model AgX100 125I source using the 2D formalism of Eq. (1) from the 2004 AAPM TG-43U1 report Polar angle θ (°) r (cm) 0.25 0.5 0.7 1 1.5 2 3 5 7 10 0 6.85 1.018 0.549 0.287 0.1393 0.0788 0.0316 0.00747 0.00229 0.000485 2 7.01 1.014 0.550 0.311 0.1617 0.0926 0.0361 0.00828 0.00249 0.000501 5 7.19 1.480 0.784 0.397 0.1786 0.0971 0.0372 0.00847 0.00252 0.000518 7 8.03 1.608 0.834 0.425 0.1902 0.1027 0.0388 0.00882 0.00261 0.000534 10 12.85 1.898 0.976 0.486 0.213 0.1138 0.0423 0.00936 0.00274 0.000552 15 18.06 2.51 1.235 0.593 0.251 0.1308 0.0474 0.01021 0.00296 0.000589 20 21.4 3.01 1.447 0.680 0.281 0.1448 0.0515 0.01093 0.00314 0.000623 25 22.5 3.39 1.613 0.749 0.305 0.1560 0.0550 0.01153 0.00329 0.000647 30 22.5 3.66 1.739 0.802 0.325 0.1649 0.0577 0.01202 0.00341 0.000669 40 20.4 4.00 1.915 0.882 0.354 0.1785 0.0619 0.01278 0.00361 0.000703 50 17.02 4.18 2.02 0.933 0.374 0.1881 0.0650 0.01333 0.00376 0.000728 60 16.02 4.25 2.09 0.969 0.388 0.1950 0.0672 0.01371 0.00386 0.000749 70 15.32 4.00 2.11 0.991 0.398 0.1999 0.0688 0.01401 0.00394 0.000759 80 14.89 3.98 2.01 0.955 0.398 0.201 0.0694 0.01417 0.00397 0.000770 90 14.74 3.98 2.02 0.952 0.386 0.1950 0.0676 0.01388 0.00390 0.000760 Table 12. Dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the IsoRay model CS-1 Rev2 131Cs source using the 2D formalism of Eq. (1) from the 2004 AAPM TG-43U1 report Polar angle θ (°) r (cm) 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.7 1 2 3 5 7 10 0 29.3 4.25 2.04 0.942 0.205 0.0778 0.01874 0.00602 0.001321 2 31.3 4.08 1.933 0.911 0.206 0.0782 0.01881 0.00596 0.001343 5 32.8 4.00 1.824 0.836 0.1876 0.0724 0.01777 0.00572 0.001299 7 31.5 3.67 1.689 0.794 0.1831 0.0714 0.01765 0.00570 0.001294 10 28.3 3.45 1.648 0.789 0.1846 0.0720 0.01781 0.00575 0.001310 15 26.6 3.62 1.745 0.836 0.1940 0.0752 0.01848 0.00593 0.001344 20 25.8 3.86 1.861 0.889 0.204 0.0786 0.01915 0.00613 0.001382 25 185.4 24.0 4.04 1.955 0.932 0.212 0.0813 0.01969 0.00629 0.001421 30 145.9 22.2 4.15 2.02 0.965 0.219 0.0836 0.0202 0.00643 0.001452 40 100.2 19.29 4.25 2.10 1.009 0.228 0.0870 0.0209 0.00666 0.001497 50 79.3 17.24 4.25 2.14 1.034 0.234 0.0892 0.0214 0.00682 0.001532 60 67.9 15.85 4.20 2.15 1.048 0.238 0.0907 0.0218 0.00692 0.001558 70 61.3 14.95 4.14 2.15 1.054 0.241 0.0917 0.0220 0.00700 0.001572 80 57.9 14.45 4.11 2.15 1.056 0.242 0.0922 0.0222 0.00703 0.001582 90 56.9 14.28 4.10 2.14 1.056 0.242 0.0923 0.0222 0.00705 0.001585 Table 14. Dose rates (cGy h−1 U−1) per unit source strength for the BEBIG model S17plus 125I source in along-away format Along (cm) Away (cm) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 3.93 0.940 0.382 0.1927 0.0669 0.0286 0.01379 0.00711 0.00386 0.5 0.959 1.933 0.757 0.348 0.1839 0.0659 0.0283 0.01369 0.00707 0.00385 1.0 0.280 0.601 0.416 0.247 0.1472 0.0588 0.0265 0.01308 0.00685 0.00376 1.5 0.1350 0.242 0.218 0.1575 0.1068 0.0488 0.0235 0.01200 0.00642 0.00357 2.0 0.0779 0.1193 0.1200 0.0983 0.0742 0.0386 0.0200 0.01067 0.00587 0.00332 2.5 0.0476 0.0664 0.0702 0.0626 0.0508 0.0297 0.01654 0.00923 0.00524 0.00303 3.0 0.0315 0.0407 0.0435 0.0405 0.0347 0.0224 0.01339 0.00782 0.00459 0.00271 3.5 0.0211 0.0260 0.0279 0.0270 0.0240 0.01675 0.01064 0.00651 0.00395 0.00239 4.0 0.01468 0.01746 0.01865 0.01839 0.01687 0.01248 0.00836 0.00535 0.00335 0.00208 4.5 0.01050 0.01216 0.01281 0.01281 0.01204 0.00928 0.00654 0.00435 0.00281 0.001795 5.0 0.00768 0.00870 0.00903 0.00907 0.00863 0.00694 0.00509 0.00351 0.00233 0.001533 5.5 0.00559 0.00627 0.00645 0.00650 0.00627 0.00521 0.00395 0.00281 0.001926 0.001299 6.0 0.00413 0.00461 0.00469 0.00473 0.00460 0.00394 0.00307 0.00225 0.001584 0.001089 6.5 0.00309 0.00343 0.00347 0.00349 0.00341 0.00299 0.00238 0.001791 0.001297 0.000906 7.0 0.00234 0.00258 0.00259 0.00260 0.00255 0.00227 0.001851 0.001428 0.001056 0.000750 Table A10. CONF(r, θ) for the IBt model 1031L 103Pd source, taken directly from Taylor and Rogers.15 Polar angle θ (°) r (cm) 0.1 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 2 3 5 7.5 10 0 0.623 0.1937 0.224 0.276 0.406 0.460 0.520 0.574 0.661 2 0.612 0.233 0.284 0.344 0.414 0.441 0.473 0.531 0.608 5 0.558 0.399 0.393 0.409 0.444 0.470 0.501 0.546 0.635 7 0.555 0.503 0.473 0.466 0.480 0.500 0.527 0.572 0.639 10 0.681 0.579 0.522 0.511 0.517 0.533 0.555 0.596 0.681 15 0.748 0.654 0.611 0.596 0.595 0.604 0.621 0.652 0.714 20 0.917 0.696 0.674 0.670 0.662 0.669 0.675 0.708 0.734 25 0.896 1.027 0.739 0.716 0.713 0.712 0.719 0.728 0.748 0.794 30 0.952 1.083 0.782 0.758 0.756 0.753 0.757 0.765 0.777 0.817 40 0.897 1.100 0.869 0.835 0.831 0.828 0.832 0.838 0.851 0.873 50 0.902 1.074 0.933 0.906 0.902 0.893 0.897 0.895 0.906 0.909 60 0.926 1.043 0.972 0.958 0.955 0.945 0.948 0.940 0.945 0.949 70 0.964 1.022 0.991 0.983 0.985 0.976 0.978 0.972 0.980 0.963 80 0.992 1.007 0.998 0.995 0.998 0.995 0.994 0.991 0.989 0.988 Reference 1Rivard MJ, Ballester F, Butler WM, et al. Supplement 2 for the 2004 update of the AAPM Task Group No. 43 Report: joint recommendations by the AAPM and GEC-ESTRO. Med Phys. 2017; 44: e297– e338. Citing Literature Volume45, Issue2February 2018Pages 971-974 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)