• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.337-343
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The aim of this study is to evaluate unwanted scattered dose to ovary by scattering and leakage generated from treatment fields of Tomotherapy for childbearing woman with breast cancer. Materials and Methods : The radiation treatments plans for left breast cancer were established using Tomotherapy planning system (Tomotherapy, Inc, USA). They were generated by using helical and direct Tomotherapy methods for comparison. The CT images for the planning were scanned with 2.5 mm slice thickness using anthropomorphic phantom (Alderson-Rando phantom, The Phantom Laboratory, USA). The measurement points for the ovary dose were determined at the points laterally 30 cm apart from mid-point of treatment field of the pelvis. The measurements were repeated five times and averaged using glass dosimeters (1.5 mm diameter and 12 mm of length) equipped with low-energy correction filter. The measures dose values were also converted to Organ Equivalent Dose (OED) by the linear exponential dose-response model. Results : Scattered doses of ovary which were measured based on two methods of Tomo helical and Tomo direct showed average of $64.94{\pm}0.84mGy$ and $37.64{\pm}1.20mGy$ in left ovary part and average of $64.38{\pm}1.85mGy$ and $32.96{\pm}1.11mGy$ in right ovary part. This showed when executing Tomotherapy, measured scattered dose of Tomo Helical method which has relatively greater monitor units (MUs) and longer irradiation time are approximately 1.8 times higher than Tomo direct method. Conclusion : Scattered dose of left and right ovary of childbearing women is lower than ICRP recommended does which is not seriously worried level against the infertility and secondary cancer occurrence. However, as breast cancer occurrence ages become younger in the future and radiation therapy using high-precision image guidance equipment like Tomotherapy is developed, clinical follow-up studies about the ovary dose of childbearing women patients would be more required.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-53
• /
• 2008

Purpose: We are trying to analyze 130 patients' conditions by using our Helical Tomotherapy, which was installed in our center in Oct. 2007. We will be statistically approach this examination and analyze so that we will be able to figure out adaptive plans according to the change in place of the tumor, GTV (gross tumor volume), total amount of time it took, vector (${\upsilon}=\surd$x2+y2+z2) and the change in size of the tumor. Materials and Methods: Objectives were the patients who were medicated with Tomotherapy in our medical center since Oct. 2007 August 2008. The Average age of the patients were 53 years old (Minimum 25 years old, Maximum 83 years old). The parts of the body we operated were could be categorized as Head&neck (n=22), Chest (n=47), Abdomen (n=25), Pelvis (n=11), Bone (n=25). MVCT had acted on 2702 times, and also had acted on our adaptive plan toward patients who showed big difference in the size of tumor. Also, after equalizing our gained MVCT and kv-CT we checked up on the range of possible mistake, using x, y, z, roll and vector. We've also investigated on Set-up, MVCT, average time of operation and target volume. Results: Mean time on table was 22.8 minutes. Mean treatment time was 13.26 minutes. Mean correction (mm) was X=-0.7, Y=-1.4, Z=5.77, roll=0.29, vector=8.66 Head&neck patients had 2.96 mm less vector value in movement than patients of Chest, Abdomen, Bone. In increasing order, Head&neck, Bone, Abdomen, Chest, Pelvis showed the vector value in movement. Also, there were 27 patients for adaptive plan, 39 patients, who had long or multiple tumor. We could know that When medical treatment is one cure plan, it takes 32 minutes, and when medical treatment is two cure plan, it takes 40 minutes that one medical treatment takes 21 minutes, and the other medical treatment takes 19 minutes. Conclusion:With our basic tools, we could bring more accurate IMRT with MVCT. Also, through our daily image, we checked up on the change in tumor so that adaptive plan could work. It was made it possible to take the cure of long or multiple tumor, the cure in a nearby OAR, and the complicated cure that should make changes of gradient dose distribution.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.201-207
• /
• 2015

The new function of 3DVH software for dose calculation inside the patient undergoing TomoTherapy treatment by applying the measured data obtained by ArcCHECK was recently released. In this study, the dosimetric accuracy of 3DVH for the TomoTherapy DQA process was evaluated by the comparison of measured dose distribution with the dose calculated using 3DVH. The 2D diode detector array MapCHECK phantom was used for the TomoTherapy planning of virtual patient and for the measurement of the compared dose. The average pass rate of gamma evaluation between the measured dose in the MapCHECK phantom and the recalculated dose in 3DVH was $92.6{\pm}3.5%$, and the error was greater than the average pass rate, $99.0{\pm}1.2%$, in the gamma evaluation results with the dose calculated in TomoTherapy planning system. The error was also greater than that in the gamma evaluation results in the RapidArc analysis, which showed the average pass rate of $99.3{\pm}0.9%$. The evaluated accuracy of 3DVH software for TomoTherapy DQA process in this study seemed to have some uncertainty for the clinical use. It is recommended to perform a proper analysis before using the 3DVH software for dose recalculation of the patient in the TomoTherapy DQA process considering the initial application stage in clinical use.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.393-399
• /
• 2017

In this paper, we compared the Radiation treatment plan of rectal cancer on 3D-conformal Radiation Therapy, Tomotherapy and Linac Based IMRT using treatment planning system and to find the optimal treatment technique. The results of the comparison of treatments are as follows. In tumor tissue absorption dose more than 95% of the dose prescription dose and normal tissues(bladder, small bowel, fumer bone head) was NOT Normal tissue complication rate(V40, V30, V20, V10) but, The most effective treatment(dose distribution) for the three treatments was tomotherapy based IMRT. The worst was 3D-CRT. If this study is applied to patients under their health status and physical environment, patient's prognosis and quality of life will improve.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.439-448
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study was to analyze the results from statistical process control (SPC) to recommend upper and lower control limits for planning parameters based on delivery quality assurance (DQA) results and establish our institutional guidelines regarding planning parameters for helical tomotherapy (HT). A total of 53 brain, 41 head and neck (H & N), and 51 pelvis cases who had passing or failing DQA measurements were selected. The absolute point dose difference (DD) and the global gamma passing rate (GPR) for all patients were analyzed. Control charts were used to evaluate upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL) for all assessed treatment planning parameters. Treatment planning parameters were analyzed to provide its range for DQA pass cases. We confirmed that the probability of DQA failure was higher when the proportion of leaf open time (LOT) below 100 ms was greater than 30%. LOT and gantry period (GP) were significant predictor for DQA failure using the SPC method. We investigated the availability of the SPC statistic method to establish the local planning guideline based on DQA results for HT system. The guideline of each planning parameter in HT may assist in the prediction of DQA failure using the SPC statistic method in the future.

• 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.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.88-96
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment for skin cancer has recently increased in tomotherapy. It was reported that required dose could be delivered with homogeneous dose distribution to the target without field matching using electron and photon beam. Therapeutic beam of tomotherapy, however, has several different physical characteristic and irradiation of helical beam is involved in the mechanically dynamic factors. Thus verification of skin dose is requisite using independent tools with additional verification method. Modified phantom for dose measurement was developed and skin dose verification was performed using inserted thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic EBT films. As the homogeneous dose was delivered to the region including surface and 6 mm depth, measured dose using films showed about average 2% lower dose than calculated one in treatment planning system. Region indicating about 14% higher and lower absorbed dose was verified on measured dose distribution. Uniformity of dose distribution on films decreased as compared with that of calculated results. Dose variation affected by inhomogeneous material, Teflon, little showed. In regard to the measured dose and its distribution in tomotherapy, verification of skin dose through measurement is required before the radiation treatment for the target located at the curved surface or superficial depth.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.327-335
• /
• 2013

This study investigates the case of clinical application for TomoDirect 3D-CRT(TD-3D) and TomoHelical 3D-CRT(TH-3D) with evaluating dose distribution for clinical application in each case. Treatment plans were created for 8 patients who had 3 dimensional conformal radiation therapy using TD-3D and TH-3D mode. Each patients were treated for sarcoma, CSI(craniospinal irradiaion), breast, brain, pancreas, spine metastasis, SVC syndrome and esophagus. DVH(dose volume histogram) and isodose curve were used for comparison of each treatment modality. TD-3D shows better dose distribution over the irradiation field without junction effect because TD-3D was not influenced by target length for sarcoma and CSI case. In breast case, dosimetric results of CTV, the average value of D 99%, D 95% were $49.2{\pm}0.4$ Gy, $49.9{\pm}0.4$ Gy and V 105%, V 110% were 0%, respectively. TH-3D with the dosimetric block decreased dose of normal organ in brain, pancreas, spine metastasis case. SCV syndrome also effectively decreased dose of normal organ by using dose block to the critical organs(spinal cord <38 Gy). TH-3D combined with other treatment modalities was possible to boost irradiation and was total dose was reduced to spinal cord in esophagus case(spinal cord <45 Gy, lung V 20 <20%). 3D-CRT using Tomotherapy could overcomes some dosimetric limitations, when we faced Conventional Linac based CRT and shows clinically proper dose distribution. In conclusion, 3D-CRT using Tomotherapy will be one of the effective 3D-CRT techniques.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.99-106
• /
• 2007

Purpose: The patient's position and anatomy during the treatment course little bit varies to some extend due to setup uncertainties and organ motions. These factors could affected to not only the dose coverage of the gross tumor but over dosage of normal tissue. Setup uncertainties and organ motions can be minimized by precise patient positioning and rigid immobilization device but some anatomical site such as prostate, the internal organ motion due to physiological processes are challenge. In planning procedure, the clinical target volume is a little bit enlarged to create a planning target volume that accounts for setup uncertainties and organ motion as well. These uncertainties lead to differences between the calculated dose by treatment planning system and the actually delivered dose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences of interfractional displacement of organ and GTV based on the tomoimages. Materials and Methods: Over the course of 3 months, 3 patients, those who has applied rectal balloon, treated for prostatic cancer patient's tomoimage were studied. During the treatment sessions 26 tomoimages per patient, Total 76 tomoimages were collected. Tomoimage had been taken everyday after initial setup with lead marker attached on the patient's skin center to comparing with C-T simulation images. Tomoimage was taken after rectal balloon inflated with 60 cc of air for prostate gland immobilization for daily treatment just before treatment and it was used routinely in each case. The intrarectal balloon was inserted to a depth of 6 cm from the anal verge. MVCT image was taken with 5 mm slice thickness after the intrarectal balloon in place and inflated. For this study, lead balls are used to guide the registration between the MVCT and CT simulation images. There are three image fusion methods in the tomotherapy, bone technique, bone/tissue technique, and full image technique. We used all this 3 methods to analysis the setup errors. Initially, image fusions were based on the visual alignment of lead ball, CT anatomy and CT simulation contours and then the radiation therapist registered the MVCT images with the CT simulation images based on the bone based, rectal balloon based and GTV based respectively and registered image was compared with each others. The average and standard deviation of each X, Y, Z and rotation from the initial planning center was calculated for each patient. The image fusions were based on the visual alignment of lead ball, CT anatomy and CT simulation contours. Results: There was a significant difference in the mean variations of the rectal balloon among the methods. Statistical results based on the bone fusion shows that maximum x-direction shift was 8 mm and 4.2 mm to the y-direction. It was statistically significant (P=<0.0001) in balloon based fusion, maximum X and Y shift was 6 mm, 16mm respectively. One patient's result was more than 16 mm shift and that was derived from the rectal expansions due to the bowl gas and stool. GTV based fusion results ranging from 2.7 to 6.6 mm to the x-direction and 4.3$\sim$7.8 mm to the y-direction respectively. We have checked rotational error in this study but there are no significant differences among fusion methods and the result was 0.37$\pm$0.36 in bone based fusion and 0.34$\pm$0.38 in GTV based fusion.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.723-730
• /
• 2021

This study tries to compare dose distribution between arc radiation therapy and Tomotherapy, which are main radiation therapy modalities. The subjects of this study are lung cancer patients. For planning target volume (PTV), a dose of 60.0 Gy was set as a basis. The PTVmean of Arc was 61.04 Gy, and that of Tomotherapy was 58.50 Gy. The total lung capacities of Arc and Tomotherapy were 3.0 Gy and 4.24 Gy, respectively. The mean heart doses of Arc and Tomotherapy were 0.13 and 0.34, respectively; the mean trachea dose of Arc and Tomotherapy were 1.35 and 2.58, respectively; the mean esophagus dose of Arc and Tomotherapy were 0.41 and 0.86, respectively; the mean spinal cord dose of Arc and Tomotherapy were 3.65 and 4.68, respectively. With regard to the appropriateness of therapeutic effect in DHV, both modalities seemed appropriate. Tomotherapy protected normal tissues better than Arc radiation therapy. In Tomotherapy, patients need to have treatment long in a limited space. If such a point is overcome, Tomotherapy is better. Otherwise, Arc radiation therapy can be applied. This study was conducted with treatment planning images. Therefore, the results of this study are different from actual treatment results. If more research is conducted to overcome the limitation, the effects of radiation therapy are expected to increase further.