Abstract
Purpose : This study aimed to compare and evaluate between the efficiency of two respective devices, 3D-bolus and step-bolus when the devices were used for the treatment of patients whose chest walls were required to undergo the electron beam therapy after the surgical procedure of modified radical mastectomy, MRM. Materials and Methods : The treatment plan of reverse hockey stick method, using the photon beam and electron beam, had been set for six breast cancer patients and these 6 breast cancer patients were selected to be the subjects for this study. The prescribed dose of electron beam for anterior chest wall was set to be 180 cGy per treatment and both the 3D-bolus, produced using 3D printer(CubeX, 3D systems, USA) and the self-made conventional step-bolus were used respectively. The surface dose under 3D-bolus and step-bolus was measured at 5 measurement spots of iso-center, lateral, medial, superior and inferior point, using GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film (International specialty products, USA) and the measured value of dose at 5 spots was compared and analyzed. Also the respective treatment plan was devised, considering the adoption of 3D-bolus and stepbolus and the separate treatment results were compared to each other. Results : The average surface dose was 179.17 cGy when the device of 3D-bolus was adopted and 172.02 cGy when step-bolus was adopted. The average error rate against the prescribed dose of 180 cGy was -(minus) 0.47% when the device of 3D-bolus was adopted and it was -(minus) 4.43% when step-bolus was adopted. It was turned out that the maximum error rate at the point of iso-center was 2.69%, in case of 3D-bolus adoption and it was 5,54% in case of step-bolus adoption. The maximum discrepancy in terms of treatment accuracy was revealed to be about 6% when step-bolus was adopted and to be about 3% when 3D-bolus was adopted. The difference in average target dose on chest wall between 3D-bolus treatment plan and step-bolus treatment plan was shown to be insignificant as the difference was only 0.3%. However, to mention the average prescribed dose for the part of lung and heart, that of 3D-bolus was decreased by 11% for lung and by 8% for heart, compared to that of step-bolus. Conclusion : It was confirmed through this research that the dose uniformity could be improved better through the device of 3D-bolus than through the device of step-bolus, as the device of 3D-bolus, produced in consideration of the contact condition of skin surface of chest wall, could be attached to patients' skin more nicely and the thickness of chest wall can be guaranteed more accurately by the device of 3D-bolus. It is considered that 3D-bolus device can be highly appreciated clinically because 3D-bolus reduces the dose on the adjacent organs and make the normal tissues protected, while that gives no reduction of dose on chest wall.
목 적 : 변형 근치적 유방절제술(modified radical mastectomy, MRM)후 흉벽에 전자선 치료를 받는 환자에게 3D-bolus와 step-bolus를 각각 적용하여 유용성을 비교 평가하였다. 대상 및 방법 : 본 연구는 광자선과 전자선을 이용한 역하키스틱법 방식으로 치료계획이 수립된 총 6명의 유방암 환자를 대상으로 하였다. 전방흉벽에 대한 전자선 처방선량은 회당 180 cGy로 3D 프린터(CubeX, 3D systems, USA)로 제작된 3D-bolus와 본원에서 자체 제작한 기존의 stepbolus를 적용하였다. 3D-bolus와 step-bolus에 대한 표면선량은 GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film (International specialty products, USA)을 이용하여, bolus의 다섯 측정지점(iso-center, lateral, medial, superior, and inferior)에 대한 선량 값을 통해 비교 분석하였다. 또한 3D-bolus와 step-bolus 적용에 따른 치료계획을 각각 수립하여 그 결과를 비교하였다. 결 과 : 표면선량은 3D-bolus 적용 시 평균 179.17 cGy이고 step-bolus는 172.02 cGy였다. 처방선량 180 cGy에 대한 평균 값의 오차율은 3D-bolus 적용 시 -0.47%이고 step-bolus는 -4.43%였다. 측정지점 iso-center에서의 오차율은 3D-bolus 적용 시 최대 2.69%의 차이를 보였고, step-bolus는 5.54%였다. 치료의 오차범위는 step-bolus에서 약 6%이고, 3D-bolus는 약 3%였다. 치료계획을 통해 비교한 흉벽의 평균 표적선량은 0.3%로 큰 차이를 나타내지 않았다. 그러나 폐와 심장의 평균 표적선량은 step-bolus에 비해 3D-bolus에서 -11%와 -8%로 감소하였다. 결 론 : 본 연구 결과로 볼 때 흉벽에 대한 피부표면의 접촉면이 고려된 3D-bolus는 step-bolus에 비하여 환자 피부에 잘 밀착되고, 정밀한 흉벽두께 보상이 가능하기 때문에 선량 균일성이 향상됨을 확인하였다. 또한 흉벽에 대한 선량은 동일하지만 인접장기의 선량을 감소시켜 정상조직을 더 많이 보호함으로써 3D-bolus가 임상적으로 유용한 보상체로 사용될 것으로 사료된다.
