• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.99-105
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of IMRT in our clinic from based on TG119 procedure and establish action level. Five IMRT test cases were described in TG119: multi-target, head&neck, prostate, and two C-shapes (easy&hard). There were used and delivered to water-equivalent solid phantom for IMRT. Absolute dose for points in target and OAR was measured by using an ion chamber (CC13, IBA). EBT2 film was utilized to compare the measured two-dimensional dose distribution with the calculated one by treatment planning system. All collected data were analyzed using the TG119 specifications to determine the confidence limit. The mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.2{\pm}1.1%$ and $1.2{\pm}0.7%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The resulting confidence limits were 3.4% and 2.6%. In EBT2 film dosimetry, the average percentage of points passing the gamma criteria (3%/3 mm) was $97.7{\pm}0.8%$. Confidence limit values determined by EBT2 film analysis was 3.9%. This study has focused on IMRT commissioning and quality assurance based on TG119 guideline. It is concluded that action level were ${\pm}4%$ and ${\pm}3%$ for target and OAR and 97% for film measurement, respectively. It is expected that TG119-based procedure can be used as reference to evaluate the accuracy of IMRT for each institution.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.613-620
• /
• 2017

Planning dose must be delivered accurately for radiation therapy. Also, It must be needed accurately setup. However, patient positioning images were need for accuracy setup. Then patient positioning images is followed by additional exposure to radiation. For 45 points in the phantom, we measured the doses for 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams, OBI(On Board Imager) and CBCT(Conebeam Computed Tomography) using OSLD(Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeter). We compared the differences in the cases where posture confirmation imaging at each point was added to the treatment dose. Also, we tried to propose a photography cycle that satisfies the 5% recommended by AAPM(The American Association of Physicists in Medicine). As a result, a maximum of 98.6 cGy was obtained at a minimum of 45.27 cGy at the 6 MV, a maximum of 99.66 cGy at a minimum of 53.34 cGy at the 10 MV, a maximum of 2.64 cGy at the minimum of 0.19 cGy for the OBI and a maximum of 17.18 cGy at the minimum of 0.54 cGy for the CBCT.The ratio of the radiation dose to the treatment dose is 3.49% in the case of 2D imaging and the maximum is 22.65% in the case of 3D imaging. Therefore, tolerance of 2D image is 1 exposure per day, and 3D image is 1 exposure per week. And it is need to calculation of separate in the parallelism at additional study.