• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.100-106
• /
• 2003

Purpose : To develop a patients' setup verification tool (PSVT) to verify the alignment of the machine and the target isocenters, and the reproduclbility of patients' setup for three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). The utilization of this system is evaluated through phantom and patient case studies. Materials and methods : We developed and clinically tested a new method for patients' setup verification, using digitally reconstructed radiography (DRR), simulation, porial and digital images. The PSVT system was networked to a Pentium PC for the transmission of the acquired images to the PC for analysis. To verify the alignment of the machine and target isocenters, orthogonal pairs of simulation images were used as verification images. Errors in the isocenter alignment were measured by comparing the verification images with DRR of CT Images. Orthogonal films were taken of all the patients once a week. These verification films were compared with the DRR were used for the treatment setup. By performing this procedure every treatment, using humanoid phantom and patient cases, the errors of localization can be analyzed, with adjustments made from the translation. The reproducibility of the patients' setup was verified using portal and digital images. Results : The PSVT system was developed to verify the alignment of the machine and the target isocenters, and the reproducibility of the patients' setup for 3DCRT and IMRT. The results show that the localization errors are 0.8$\pm$0.2 mm (AP) and 1.0$\pm$0.3 mm (Lateral) in the cases relating to the brain and 1.1$\pm$0.5 mm (AP) and 1.0$\pm$0.6 mm (Lateral) in the cases relating to the pelvis. The reproducibility of the patients' setup was verified by visualization, using real-time image acquisition, leading to the practical utilization of our software Conclusions : A PSVT system was developed for the verification of the alignment between machine and the target isocenters, and the reproduclbility of the patients' setup in 3DCRT and IMRT. With adjustment of the completed GUI-based algorithm, and a good quality DRR image, our software may be used for clinical applications.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.337-344
• /
• 2000

Purpose :To design and test test CT simulator phantom for geometrical test. Materials and Methods : The PMMA phantom was designed as a cylinder which is 20 cm in diameter and 24 cm in length, along with a 25$\times25\times31cm^{3}$ rectangular parallelepiped. Radio-opaque wires of which diameter is 0.8 mm are attached on the other surface of the phantom as a spiral. The rectangular phantom was made of four 24$\times24\times0.5 cm^{3}$ square plates and each plate had a 24$\times24 cm^{2}$, 12$\times12cm^{2}$, 6$\times6 cm$^{2}$ square line. The squares were placed to face the cylinder at angles 0 $^{\circ}$ , 15 $^{\circ}$ , 30 $^{\circ}$ ,respectively. The rectangular phantom made it possible to measure the field size, couch angle, the collimator angle, the isocenter shift and the SSD, the measurements of the gantry angle from the cylindrical part. A virtual simulation software, AcOSim, offered various conditions to perform virtual simulations and these results were used to perform the geometrical Quality assurance of CT simulator. Results : A 0.3$\~$0.5 mm difference was found on the 24 cm field size which was created with the DRR measurements obtained by scanning of the rectangular phantom. The isocenter shift, the collimator rotation, the couch rotation, and the gantry rotation test showed 0.5$\~$1 mm, 0.5$\~$l$^{\circ}$ 0.5$\~$ 1$^{\circ}$ , and 0.5-1 $^{\circ}$ differences, respectively. We could not find any significant differences between the results from the two scanning methods. Conclusion :The geometrical test phantom developed in the study showed less than 1 mm (or 1 $^{\circ}$ ) differences. The phantom could be used as a routine geometrical QC/QA tools, since the differences are within clinically acceptable ranges.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.3 no.3
• /
• pp.5-11
• /
• 2009

When using Image Guided Radiation Therapy, the patient is placed using skin marker first and after confirming anatomical location using OBI, the couch is moved to correct the set up. Evaluation for the error made at that moment was done. Through comparing $0^{\circ}$ and $270^{\circ}$ direction DRR image and OBI image with 2D-2D matching when therapy planning, comparison between patient's therapy plan setup and actual treatment setup was made to observe the error. Treatment confirmation on important organs such as head, neck and spinal cord was done every time through OBI setup and other organs such as chest, abdomen and pelvis was done 2 ~ 3 times a week. But corrections were all recorded on OIS so that evaluation on accuracy could be made through using skin index which was divided into head, neck, chest and abdomen-pelvis on 160 patients. Average setup error for head and neck patient on each AP, SI, RL direction was $0.2{\pm}0.2cm$, $-0.1{\pm}0.1cm$, $-0.2{\pm}0.0cm$, chest patient was $-0.5{\pm}0.1cm$, $0.3{\pm}0.3cm$, $0.4{\pm}0.2cm$, and abdomen was $0.4{\pm}0.4cm$, $-0.5{\pm}0.1cm$, $-0.4{\pm}0.1cm$. In case of pelvis, it was $0.5{\pm}0.3cm$, $0.8{\pm}0.4cm$, $-0.3{\pm}0.2cm$. In rigid body parts such as head and neck showed lesser setup error compared to chest and abdomen. Error was greater on chest in horizontal axis and in AP direction, abdomen-pelvis showed greater error. Error was greater on chest in horizontal axis because of the curve in patient's body when the setup is made. Error was greater on abdomen in AP direction because of the change in front and back location due to breathing of patient. There was no systematic error on patient setup system. Since OBI confirms the anatomical location, when focus is located on the skin, it is more precise to use skin marker to setup. When compared with 3D-3D conformation, although 2D-2D conformation can't find out the rolling error, it has lesser radiation exposure and shorter setup confirmation time. Therefore, on actual clinic, 2D-2D conformation is more appropriate.