• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.109-121
• /
• 2016

To verify the accuracy of the image guided radiotherapy using ExacTrac 6D couch, the error values in six directions are randomly assigned and corrected and then the corrected values were compared with CBCT image to check the accurateness of ExacTrac. The therapy coordination values in the Rando head Phantom were moved in the directions of X, Y and Z as the translation group and they were moved in the directions of pitch, roll and yaw as the rotation group. The corrected values were moved in 6 directions with the combined and mutual reactions. The Z corrected value ranges from 1mm to 23mm. In the analysis of errors between CBCT image of the phantom which is corrected with therapy coordinate and 3D/3D matching error value, the rotation group showed higher error value than the translation group. In the distribution of dose for the error value of the therapy coordinate corrected with CBCT, the restricted value of dosage for the normal organs in two groups meet the prescription dose. In terms of PHI and PCI values which are the dose homogeneity of the cancerous tissue, the rotation group showed a little higher in the low dose distribution range. This study is designed to verify the accuracy of ExacTrac 6D couch using CBCT. It showed that in terms of the error value in the simple movement, it showed the comparatively accurate correction capability but in the movement when the angle is put in the couch, it showed the inaccurate correction values. So, if the body of the patient is likely to have a lot of changes in the direction of rotation or there is a lot of errors in the pitch, roll and yaw in ExacTrac correction, it is better to conduct the CBCT guided image to correct the therapy coordinate in order to minimize any side effects.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.7-15
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In modern radiotherapy technology, several methods of image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) are used to deliver accurate doses to tumor target locations and normal organs, including CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) and other devices, ExacTrac System, other than CBCT equipped with linear accelerators. In previous studies comparing the two systems, positional errors were analysed rearwards using Offline-view or evaluated only with a Yaw rotation with the X, Y, and Z axes. In this study, when using CBCT and ExacTrac to perform 6 Degree of the Freedom(DoF) Online IGRT in a treatment center with two equipment, the difference between the set-up calibration values seen in each system, the time taken for patient set-up, and the radiation usefulness of the imaging device is evaluated. Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the difference between mobile calibrations and exposure radiation dose, the glass dosimetry and Rando Phantom were used for 11 cancer patients with head circumference from March to October 2017 in order to assess the difference between mobile calibrations and the time taken from Set-up to shortly before IGRT. CBCT and ExacTrac System were used for IGRT of all patients. An average of 10 CBCT and ExacTrac images were obtained per patient during the total treatment period, and the difference in 6D Online Automation values between the two systems was calculated within the ROI setting. In this case, the area of interest designation in the image obtained from CBCT was fixed to the same anatomical structure as the image obtained through ExacTrac. The difference in positional values for the six axes (SI, AP, LR; Rotation group: Pitch, Roll, Rtn) between the two systems, the total time taken from patient set-up to just before IGRT, and exposure dose were measured and compared respectively with the RandoPhantom. Results: the set-up error in the phantom and patient was less than 1mm in the translation group and less than 1.5° in the rotation group, and the RMS values of all axes except the Rtn value were less than 1mm and 1°. The time taken to correct the set-up error in each system was an average of 256±47.6sec for IGRT using CBCT and 84±3.5sec for ExacTrac, respectively. Radiation exposure dose by IGRT per treatment was measured at 37 times higher than ExacTrac in CBCT and ExacTrac at 2.468mGy and 0.066mGy at Oral Mucosa among the 7 measurement locations in the head and neck area. Conclusion: Through 6D online automatic positioning between the CBCT and ExacTrac systems, the set-up error was found to be less than 1mm, 1.02°, including the patient's movement (random error), as well as the systematic error of the two systems. This error range is considered to be reasonable when considering that the PTV Margin is 3mm during the head and neck IMRT treatment in the present study. However, considering the changes in target and risk organs due to changes in patient weight during the treatment period, it is considered to be appropriately used in combination with CBCT.