• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2004

Introduction : The phantom that includes high density materials such as steel was custom-made to fix lung and bone in order to evaluation inhomogeneity correction at the time of conducting radiation therapy to treat lung cancer. Using this, values resulting from the inhomogeneous correction algorithm are compared on the 2 and 3 dimensional radiation therapy planning systems. Moreover, change in dose calculation was evaluated according to inhomogeneous by comparing with the actual measurement. Materials and Methods : As for the image acquisition, inhomogeneous correction phantom(Pig's vertebra, steel(8.21g/cm3), cork(0.23 g/cm3)) that was custom-made and the CT(Volume zoom, Siemens, Germany) were used. As for the radiation therapy planning system, Marks Plan(2D) and XiO(CMS, USA, 3D) were used. To compare with the measurement value, linear accelerator(CL/1800, Varian, USA) and ion chamber were used. Image, obtained from the CT was used to obtain point dose and dose distribution from the region of interest (ROI) while on the radiation therapy planning device. After measurement was conducted under the same conditions, value on the treatment planning device and measured value were subjected to comparison and analysis. And difference between the resulting for the evaluation on the use (or non-use) of inhomogeneity correction algorithm, and diverse inhomogeneity correction algorithm that is included in the radiation therapy planning device was compared as well. Results : As result of comparing the results of measurement value on the region of interest within the inhomogeneity correction phantom and the value that resulted from the homogeneous and inhomogeneous correction, gained from the therapy planning device, margin of error of the measurement value and inhomogeneous correction value at the location 1 of the lung showed $0.8\%$ on 2D and $0.5\%$ on 3D. Margin of error of the measurement value and inhomogeneous correction value at the location 1 of the steel showed $12\%$ on 2D and $5\%$ on 3D, however, it is possible to see that the value that is not correction and the margin of error of the measurement value stand at $16\%$ and $14\%$, respectively. Moreover, values of the 3D showed lower margin of error compared to 2D. Conclusion : Revision according to the density of tissue must be executed during radiation therapy planning. To ensure a more accurate planning, use of 3D planning system is recommended more so than the 2D Planning system to ensure a more accurate revision on the therapy plan. Moreover, 3D Planning system needs to select and use the most accurate and appropriate inhomogeneous correction algorithm through actual measurement. In addition, comparison and analysis through TLD or film dosimetry are needed.