• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.43-50
• /
• 2014

In case of all patients who receive radiation therapy, a treatment plan is established and all steps of treatment are planned in the same geometrical condition. In case of head and neck cancer patients who undergo simulated treatment through computed tomography (CT), patients are fixed onto a table for planning, but laid on the top of the treatment table in the radiation therapy room. This study excogitated and fabricated an adjustable holder for head and neck cancer patients to fix patient's position and geometrical discrepancies when performing radiation therapy on head and neck cancer patients, and compared the error before and after adjusting the position of patients due to difference in weight to evaluate the correlation between patients' weight and range of error. Computed tomography system(High Advantage, GE, USA) is used for phantom to maintain the supine position to acquire the images of the therapy site for IMRT. IMRT 4MV X-rays was used by applying the LINAC(21EX, Varian, U.S.A). Treatment planning system (Pinnacle, ver. 9.1h, Philips, Madison, USA) was used. The setup accuracy was compared with each measurement was repeated five times for each weight (0, 15, and 30Kg) and CBCT was performed 30 times to find the mean and standard deviation of errors before and after the adjustment of each weight. SPSS ver.19.0(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,USA) statistics program was used to perform the Wilcoxon Rank test for significance evaluation and the Spearman analysis was used as the tool to analyze the significance evaluation of the correlation of weight. As a result of measuring the error values from CBCT before and after adjusting the position due to the weight difference, X,Y,Z axis was $0.4{\pm}0.8mm$, $0.8{\pm}0.4mm$, 0 for 0Kg before the adjustment. In 15Kg CBCT before and after adjusting the position due to the weight difference, X,Y,Z axis was $0.2{\pm}0.8mm$, $1.2{\pm}0.4mm$, $2.0{\pm}0.4mm$. After adjusting position was X,Y,Z axis was $0.2{\pm}0.4mm$, $0.4{\pm}0.5mm$, $0.4{\pm}0.5mm$. In 30Kg CBCT before and after adjusting the position due to the weight difference, X,Y,Z axis was $0.8{\pm}0.4mm$, $2.4{\pm}0.5mm$, $4.4{\pm}0.8mm$. After adjusting position was X,Y,Z axis was $0.6{\pm}0.5mm$, $1.0{\pm}0mm$, $0.6{\pm}0.5mm$. When the holder for the head and neck cancer was used to adjust the ab.0ove error value, the error values from CBCT were $0.2{\pm}0.8mm$ for the X axis, $0.40{\pm}0.54mm$ for Y axis, and 0 for Z axis. As a result of statistically analyzing each value before and after the adjustment the value was significant with p<0.034 at the Z axis with 15Kg of weight and with p<0.038 and p<0.041 at the Y and Z axes respectively with 30Kg of weight. There was a significant difference with p<0.008 when the analysis was performed through Kruscal-Wallis in terms of the difference in the adjusted values of the three weight groups. As it could reduce the errors, patients' reproduction could be improved for more precise and accurate radiation therapy. Development of an adjustable device for head and neck cancer patients is significant because it improves the reproduction of existing equipment by reducing the errors in patients' position.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.127-135
• /
• 2014

Purpose : By taking advantage of each imaging modality, the use of fused CT/MRI image has increased in prostate cancer radiation therapy. However, fusion uncertainty may cause partial target miss or normal organ overdose. In order to complement such limitation, our hospital acquired MRI image (Planning MRI) by setting up patients with the same fixing tool and posture as CT simulation. This study aims to evaluate the usefulness of the Planning MRI through comparing and analyzing the diagnostic MRI image and Planning MRI image. Materials and Methods : This study targeted 10 patients who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and prescribed nonhormone and definitive RT 70 Gy/28 fx from August 2011 to July 2013. Each patient had both CT and MRI simulations. The MRI images were acquired within one half hour after the CT simulation. The acquired CT/MRI images were fused primarily based on bony structure matching. This study measured the volume of prostate in the images of Planning MRI and diagnostic MRI. The diameters at the craniocaudal, anteroposterior and left-to-right directions from the center of prostate were measured in order to compare changes in the shape of prostate. Results : As a result of comparing the volume of prostate in the images of Planning MRI and diagnostic MRI, they were found to be $25.01cm^3$(range $15.84-34.75cm^3$) and $25.05cm^3$(range $15.28-35.88cm^3$) on average respectively. The diagnostic MRI had an increase of 0.12 % as compared with the Planning MRI. On the planning MRI, there was an increase in the volume by $7.46cm^3$(29 %) at the transition zone directions, and there was a decrease in the volume by $8.52cm^3$(34 %) in the peripheral zone direction. As a result of measuring the diameters at the craniocaudal, anteroposterior and left-to-right directions in the prostate, the Planning MRI was found to have on average 3.82cm, 2.38cm and 4.59cm respectively and the diagnostic MRI was found to have on average 3.37cm, 2.76cm and 4.51cm respectively. All three prostate diameters changed and the change was significant in the Planning MRI. On average, the anteroposterior prostate diameter decrease by 0.38cm(13 %). The mean right-to-left and craniocaudal diameter increased by 0.08cm(1.6 %) and 0.45cm(13 %), respectively. Conclusion : Based on the results of this study, it was found that the total volumes of prostate in the Planning MRI and the diagnostic MRI were not significantly different. However, there was a change in the shape and partial volume of prostate due to the insertion of prostate balloon tube to the rectum. Thus, if the Planning MRI images were used when conducting the fusion of CT/MRI images, it would be possible to include the target in the CTV without a loss as much as the increased volume in the transition zone. Also, it would be possible to reduce the radiation dose delivered to the rectum through separating more clearly the reduction of peripheral zone volume. Therefore, the author of this study believes that acquisition of Planning MRI image should be made to ensure target delineation and localization accuracy.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2011

Purpose: Helical Tomotherapy allows only coplanar beam delivery because it does not allow couch rotation. We investigated a method to introduce non-coplanar beam by tilting a patient's head for Tomotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare intrafractional movement during Tomotherapy between coplanar and non-coplanar patient's setup. Materials and Methods: Helical Tomotherapy was used for treating eight patients with intracranial tumor. The subjects were divided into three groups: one group (coplanar) of 2 patients who lay on S-plate with supine position and wore thermoplastic mask for immobilizing the head, second group (non-coplanar) of 3 patients who lay on S-plate with supine position and whose head was tilted with Variable Axis Baseplate and wore thermoplastic mask, and third group (non-coplanar plus mouthpiece) of 3 patients whose head was tilted and wore a mouthpiece immobilization device and thermoplastic mask. The patients were treated with Tomotherapy after treatment planning with Tomotherapy Planning System. Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) was performed before and after treatment, and the intrafractional error was measured with lateral(X), longitudinal(Y), vertical(Z) direction movements and vector ($\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$) value for assessing overall movement. Results: Intrafractional error was compared among three groups by taking the error of MVCT taken after the treatment. As the correction values (X, Y, Z) between MVCT image taken after treatment and CT-simulation image are close to zero, the patient movement is small. When the mean values of movement of each direction for non-coplanar setup were compared with coplanar setup group, X-axis movement was decreased by 13%, but Y-axis and Z-axis movement were increased by 109% and 88%, respectively. Movements of Y-axis and Z-axis with non-coplanar setup were relatively greater than that of X-axis since a tilted head tended to slip down. The mean of X-axis movement of the group who used a mouthpiece was greater by 9.4% than the group who did not use, but the mean of Y-axis movement was lower by at least 64%, and the mean of Z-axis was lower by at least 67%, and the mean of Z-axis was lower by at least 67%, and the vector was lower by at least 59% with the use of a mouthpiece. Among these 8 patients, one patient whose tumor was located on left frontal lobe and left basal ganglia received reduced radiation dose of 38% in right eye, 23% in left eye, 30% in optic chiasm, 27% in brain stem, and 8% in normal brain with non-coplanar method. Conclusion: Tomotherapy only allows coplanar delivery of IMRT treatment. To complement this shortcoming, Tomotherapy can be used with non-coplanar method by artificially tilting the patient's head and using an oral immobilization instrument to minimize the movement of patient, when intracranial tumor locates near critical organs or has to be treated with high dose radiation.