한국의학물리학회지:의학물리 (Progress in Medical Physics)

  • 제28권4호
  • /
  • Pages.190-196
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 2508-4445(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2508-4453(eISSN)
한국의학물리학회 (Korean Society of Medical Physics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Implementation of AAPM's TG-51 Protocol on Co-60 MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy System

  • Cho, Jin Dong (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, Jong Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Choi, Chang Heon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Jung-in (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Wu, Hong-Gyun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Park, So-Yeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2017.12.08
  • 심사 : 2017.12.16
  • 발행 : 2017.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

For the $ViewRay^{(R)}$ system (ViewRay Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA) which is representative of magnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy machine, it is important to evaluate effectiveness of AAPM's TG-51 protocol and the effect of the magnetic field on absolute dosimetry. In order to measure the absolute dose, MR-compatible chamber and water phantom system manufactured in this study were used. The materials of the water phantom system were plastic of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and non-ferrous materials. Due to the inherent feature of the $ViewRay^{(R)}$, all Co-60 sources are not located at gantry angle of $0^{\circ}$ while being located at gantry angle of $90^{\circ}$. For this reason, absolute dosimetry was performed based on the measurements in solid water phantom (SWP) and water which determine the SWP to water correction factor. For evaluation of output constancy with gantry angle, measurements were made with ionization chamber inserted in cylindrical water-equivalent phantom. For measured doses in water, the values of dose deviation according to a reference dose of 200 cGy for Head 1, Head 2 and Head 3 were -0.27%, -0.45% and -0.22%, respectively. For measured doses in SWP, the values of dose deviation according to a reference dose of 200 cGy for Head 1, Head 2 and Head 3 were -1.91%, -2.07% and -1.84%, respectively. All values of dose measured in SWP tended to be less than those measured in water by -1.63%. With the reference gantry angles of $0^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$, the maximum values of deviation for Head 1, Head 2 and Head 3 were 0.48%, 1.06% and 0.40%, respectively. The measurement agreement is within the range of results obtainable for conventional treatment machines. The low strength of the magnetic field does not affect dose measurements. Using the SWP to water correction factor, absolute doses for $ViewRay^{(R)}$ system can be measured.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Park JM, Park SY, Wu HG, Kim JI. Commissioning Experience of Tri-Cobalt-60 MRI-guided Radiat ion Therapy System. Prog Med Phys. 2015;26:193-200. https://doi.org/10.14316/pmp.2015.26.4.193
  2. Stam MK et al. Kidney motion during free breathing and breath hold for MR-guided radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:2235-45. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/7/2235
  3. Seierstad T et al. MR-guided simultaneous integrated boost in preoperative radiotherapy of locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2009;93:279-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.08.046
  4. Dawson LA, Jaffray DA. Advances in Image-Guided Radiation Therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:938-46. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.9515
  5. Court L, Rosen I, Mohan R, Dong L. Evaluat ion of mechanical precision and alignment uncertainties for an integrated CT/LINAC system. Med Phys. 2003;30:1198-210. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1573792
  6. Oldham M et al. Cone-beam-CT guided radiation therapy A model for on-line application. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:271-8.
  7. Hansen EK et al. Image-guided radiotherapy using megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography for treatment of paraspinous tumors in the presence of orthopedic hardware. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;66:323-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.05.038
  8. Mohan DS, Kupelian PA, Willoughby TR. Short-course intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer with daily transabdominal ultrasound localization of the prostate gland. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46:575-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(99)00454-X
  9. Choi CH et al. Quality of tri-Co-60 MR-IGRT treatment plans in comparison with VMAT treatment plans for spine SABR. Br J Radiol. 2017;90:20160652. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160652
  10. Ling CC, Yorke E, Fuks Z. From IMRT to IGRT: frontierland or neverland? Radiother Oncol. 2006;78:119-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2005.12.005
  11. Tejinder Kataria SG. Image Guided Radiation Therapy. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther. 2014;5.
  12. Mutic S, Dempsey JF. The ViewRay system: magnetic resonance-guided and controlled radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2014;24:196-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.02.008
  13. Wooten HO et al. Benchmark IMRT evaluation of a Co-60 MRI-guided radiation therapy system. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:402-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2015.01.015
  14. Kashani R et al. Commissioning and Clinical Implementation of the First Online Adaptive MR Image Guided Radiation Therapy Program. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;93:S18-9.
  15. Park JM, Park SY, Kim JI, Kang HC, Choi CH. A comparison of treatment plan quality between Tri-Co-60 intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for cervical cancer. Phys Med. 2017;40:11-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.018
  16. Park JM et al. Treatment plan comparison between Tri-Co-60 magnetic-resonance image-guided radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:91174-84.
  17. Park JM et al. A comparative planning study for lung SABR between tri-Co-60 magnetic resonance image guided radiation therapy system and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2016;120:279-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2016.06.013
  18. Almond PR et al. AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon and electron beams. Med Phys. 1999;26:1847-70. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598691
  19. McEwen M et al. Addendum to the AAPM’s TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams. Med Phys. 2014;41:041501-1. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4866223
  20. Green O, Goddu S, Mutic S. SU-E-T-352: Commissioning and Quality Assurance of the First Commercial Hybrid MRI-IMRT System. Med Phys. 2012;39:3785.
  21. Goddu S, Green O, Mut ic S. WE-G-BRB-08: TG-51 Calibration of First Commercial MRI-Guided IMRT System in the Presence of 0.35 Tesla Magnetic Field. Med Phys. 2012;39:3968.
  22. Day M, EGA A Central axis depth dose data for use in radiotherapy. A survey of depth doses and related data measured in water or equivalent media. Br J Radiol Suppl. 1983;17:1-147.
  23. Tello VM, Tailor RC, Hanson WF. How water equivalent are water-equivalent solid materials for output calibration of photon and electron beams? Med Phys. 1995;22:1177-89. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597613
  24. Seuntjens J, Olivares M, Evans M, Podgorsak E. Absorbed dose to water reference dosimetry using solid phantoms in the context of absorbed-dose protocols. Med Phys. 2005;32:2945-53. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2012807
  25. Choi CH et al. External Auditing on Absorbed Dose Using a Solid Water Phantom for Domestic Radiotherapy Facilities. Prog Med Phys. 2010;28:50-6.
  26. Spindeldreier CK et al. Radiation dosimetry in magnetic fields with Farmer-type ionization chambers: determination of magnetic field correction factors for different magnetic field strengths and field orientations. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:6708-28. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa7ae4
  27. Raaijmakers AJ, Raaymakers BW, Lagendijk JJ. Integrating a MRI scanner with a 6 MV radiotherapy accelerator: dose increase at tissue-air interfaces in a lateral magnetic field due to returning electrons. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:1363-76. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/7/002
  28. O'Brien DJ, Roberts DA, Ibbott GS', Sawakuchi GO. Reference dosimetry in magnetic fields: formalism and ionization chamber correction factors. Med Phys. 2016;43:4915. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4959785
  29. Bouchard H, de Pooter J, Bielajew A, Duane S. Reference dosimetry in the presence of magnetic fields: conditions to validate Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:6639-54. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/17/6639