• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.171-176
• /
• 2014

Purpose : Changing the calculation grid of AAA in Lung SABR plan and to analyze the changes in target dose, and investigated the effects associated with it, and considered a suitable method of application. Materials and Methods : 4D CT image that was used to plan all been taken with Brilliance Big Bore CT (Philips, Netherlands) and in Lung SABR plan($Eclipse^{TM}$ ver10.0.42, Varian, the USA), use anisotropic analytic algorithm(AAA, ver.10, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA) and, was calculated by the calculation grid 1.0, 3.0, 5.0 mm in each Lung SABR plan. Results : Lung SABR plan of 10 cases are using each of 1.0 mm, 3.0 mm, 5.0 mm calculation grid, and in case of use a 1.0 mm calculation grid $V_{98}$. of the prescribed dose is about $99.5%{\pm}1.5%$, $D_{min}$ of the prescribed dose is about $92.5{\pm}1.5%$ and Homogeneity Index(HI) is $1.0489{\pm}0.0025$. In the case of use a 3.0 mm calculation grid $V_{98}$ dose of the prescribed dose is about $90{\pm}4.5%$, $D_{min}$ of the prescribed dose is about $87.5{\pm}3%$ and HI is about $1.07{\pm}1$. In the case of use a 5.0 mm calculation grid $V_{98}$ dose of the prescribed dose is about $63{\pm}15%$, $D_{min}$ of the prescribed dose is about $83{\pm}4%$ and HI is about $1.13{\pm}0.2$, respectively. Conclusion : The calculation grid of 1.0 mm is better improves the accuracy of dose calculation than using 3.0 mm and 5.0 mm, although calculation times increase in the case of smaller PTV relatively. As lung, spread relatively large and low density and small PTV, it is considered and good to use a calculation grid of 1.0 mm.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.313-320
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of Coaxial MLC VMAT plan (Using $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle) That the leaf motion direction aligned with axis of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.) compare to Universal MLC VMAT plan (using $30^{\circ}$ and $330^{\circ}$ collimator angle) for spine SBRT. Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of spine SBRT that treated with VMAT planned by Coaxial MLC and Varian TBX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse (Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3 (Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA (Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28) with coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs and 10MV FFF (Flattening filter free). Each arc has $273^{\circ}$ and $350^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. The Universal MLC VMAT plans are based on existing treatment plans. Those plans have the same parameters of existing treatment plans but collimator angle. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively. The calculation grid is 0.2 cm and all plans were normalized to the target V100%=90%. The indexes of evaluation are V10Gy, D0.03cc, Dmean of OAR (Organ at risk, It means spinal cord or cauda equine in this study.), H.I (Homogeneity index) of the target and total MU. All Coaxial VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with Mapcheck2 (Sun Nuclear Co., USA), Mapphan (Sun Nuclear Co., USA) and SNC patient (Sun Nuclear Co., USA Ver 6.1.2.18513). Results : The difference between the coaxial and the universal VMAT plans are follow. The coaxial VMAT plan is better in the V10Gy of OAR, Up to 4.1%, at least 0.4%, the average difference was 1.9% and In the D0.03cc of OAR, Up to 83.6 cGy, at least 2.2 cGy, the average difference was 33.3 cGy. In Dmean, Up to 34.8 cGy, at least -13.0 cGy, the average difference was 9.6 cGy that say the coaxial VMAT plans are better except few cases. H.I difference Up to 0.04, at least 0.01, the average difference was 0.02 and the difference of average total MU is 74.1 MU. The coaxial MLC VMAT plan is average 74.1 MU lesser then another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the coaxial MLC VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 1mm / 2%. Conclusion : Coaxial MLC VMAT treatment plan appeared to be favorable in most cases than the Universal MLC VMAT treatment planning. It is efficient in lowering the dose of the OAR V10Gy especially. As a result, the Coaxial MLC VMAT plan could be better than the Universal MLC VMAT plan in same MU.