• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-53
• /
• 2008

Purpose: We are trying to analyze 130 patients' conditions by using our Helical Tomotherapy, which was installed in our center in Oct. 2007. We will be statistically approach this examination and analyze so that we will be able to figure out adaptive plans according to the change in place of the tumor, GTV (gross tumor volume), total amount of time it took, vector (${\upsilon}=\surd$x2+y2+z2) and the change in size of the tumor. Materials and Methods: Objectives were the patients who were medicated with Tomotherapy in our medical center since Oct. 2007 August 2008. The Average age of the patients were 53 years old (Minimum 25 years old, Maximum 83 years old). The parts of the body we operated were could be categorized as Head&neck (n=22), Chest (n=47), Abdomen (n=25), Pelvis (n=11), Bone (n=25). MVCT had acted on 2702 times, and also had acted on our adaptive plan toward patients who showed big difference in the size of tumor. Also, after equalizing our gained MVCT and kv-CT we checked up on the range of possible mistake, using x, y, z, roll and vector. We've also investigated on Set-up, MVCT, average time of operation and target volume. Results: Mean time on table was 22.8 minutes. Mean treatment time was 13.26 minutes. Mean correction (mm) was X=-0.7, Y=-1.4, Z=5.77, roll=0.29, vector=8.66 Head&neck patients had 2.96 mm less vector value in movement than patients of Chest, Abdomen, Bone. In increasing order, Head&neck, Bone, Abdomen, Chest, Pelvis showed the vector value in movement. Also, there were 27 patients for adaptive plan, 39 patients, who had long or multiple tumor. We could know that When medical treatment is one cure plan, it takes 32 minutes, and when medical treatment is two cure plan, it takes 40 minutes that one medical treatment takes 21 minutes, and the other medical treatment takes 19 minutes. Conclusion:With our basic tools, we could bring more accurate IMRT with MVCT. Also, through our daily image, we checked up on the change in tumor so that adaptive plan could work. It was made it possible to take the cure of long or multiple tumor, the cure in a nearby OAR, and the complicated cure that should make changes of gradient dose distribution.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.151-160
• /
• 2003

The application of more complex radiotherapy techniques using multileaf collimation (MLC), such as 3D conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), has increased the significance of verifying leaf position and motion. Due to thier reliability and empirical robustness, quality assurance (QA) of MLC. However easy use and the ability to provide digital data of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have attracted attention to portal films as an alternatives to films for routine qualify assurance, despite concerns about their clinical feasibility, efficacy, and the cost to benefit ratio. In this study, we developed method for daily QA of MLC using electronic portal images (EPIs). EPID availability for routine QA was verified by comparing of the portal films, which were simultaneously obtained when radiation was delivered and known prescription input to MLC controller. Specially designed two-test patterns of dynamic MLC were applied for image acquisition. Quantitative off-line analysis using an edge detection algorithm enhanced the verification procedure as well as on-line qualitative visual assessment. In conclusion, the availability of EPI was enough for daily QA of MLC leaf position with the accuracy of portal films.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.3734-3740
• /
• 2014

The aim of this study was provide basic information and establish the criteria in radiation therapy planning by measuring the absorbed neutron dose of normal tissues and lesions according to the number of portals. From September 2013 to January 2014, 20 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer and were previously treated with radiation therapy were replanned retrospectively to measure the absorbed neutron dose distribution according to the number of portals. The absorbed neutron dose was measured in each of the 5, 7 and 9 portals using a 15 MV energy, which meant a therapeutic dose of 220 cGy. The optical stimulation luminescence dosimeter was separated by 20cm and 60cm away from the center of the field of view. As a result, the average radiation dose in the abdomen appeared to have a positive relationship with the number of portals, which was statistically significant (p<.05). The average radiation dose was $4.34{\pm}1.08$. The average radiation dose in the thyroid was $2.71{\pm}.37$. Although it showed a positive relationship with the number of portals, it did not have statistical significance. The number of portals and the neutron dose depending on the position showed a significant positive relationship, particularly in the abdomen. As a result of linear regression analysis, as the number of the portal increased in steps, the average volume of the neutrons increased significantly (0.416 times). In conclusion, efficient selection of the number of portals is needed considering the difference in the absorbed neutron dose in the normal tissues depending on the number of the portals.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.83-89
• /
• 2014

Purpose : In case of the intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using Tomotherapy and linear accelerator (Linac), it was to compare and to evaluate the imaging dose of MVCT and CBCT that were performed daily for the correct set up of the patient. Materials and Methods : The human body model Phantom (Anderson rando Phantom, USA) was divided into the three parts as Head, Thorax, pelvis, and after GafChromic EBT3 film cut to the size of $0.5{\times}0.5cm2$.in the center of the recording area were situated on the ant, post, left, and right surface of the phantom and 2cm in depth from the ant, post, left, right, and center surface of the phantom, the surface dose and inner dose were measured repeatedly three times, respectively, using the tomotherapy (Hi Art) and the OBI of NovalisTx. The measured film calculated the output value by RIP version6.0 and then the average value of the dose was calculated by the one-way analysis of variance. Results : Using the human body model phantom, the results of MVCT and CBCT performance were that measurements of MVCT inner dose were showed $15.43cGy{\pm}6.05$ in the head, $16.62cGy{\pm}3.08$ in the thorax, $16.81cGy{\pm}5.24$ in the pelvis, and measurements of CBCT inner dose were showed $13.28{\pm}3.68$ in the head, from $13.66{\pm}4.04$ in the thorax, $15.52{\pm}3.52$ in the pelvis. The measurements of surface dose were showed in case of MVCT performance, $11.64{\pm}4.05$ in the head, $12.16{\pm}4.38$ in the thorax, $12.05{\pm}2.71$ in the pelvis, and in case of CBCT performance, $14.59{\pm}3.51$ in the head, $15.82{\pm}2.89$ in the thorax, $17.48{\pm}2.80$ in the pelvis, respectively. Conclusion : In case of Inner dose, the MVCT using MV energy showed higher than the CBCT using kV energy at 1.16 times in the head, at 1.22 times in the thorax, at 1.08 times in the pelvis, and in case of surface dose, the CBCT was higher than MVCT, at 1.25 times in the head, at 1.30 times in the thorax, at 1.45 times in the pelvis. Imaging dose was a small amount compared to the therapeutic dose but it was thought to affect partially to normal tissue because it was done in daily schedule. However, IMRT treatment was necessarily parallel with the IGRT treatment through the image-guide to minimize errors between planned and actual treatment. Thus, to minimize imaging dose that the patients receive, when planning the treatment, it should be set up a treatment plan considering imaging dose, or it must be performed by minimizing the scan range when shooting MVCT.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.289-295
• /
• 2014

Purpose : Cone Beam Computed Tomography(CBCT) in Image Guided Radiation Therapy(IGRT), Set-up error can be reduced but exposure dose of the patient due to CBCT will increase. Through this study, we are to evaluate by making a scenario with the implementation period of CBCT as every other day. Materials and Methods : Of prostate cancer patients, 9 patients who got a Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy(IMRT) with CBCT in IGRT were analyzed. Based on values corrected by analyzing set-up error by using CBCT every day during actual treatment, we created a scenario that conducts CBCT every other day. After applying set-up error values of the day not performing CBCT in the scenario to the treatment planning system(Pinnacle 9.2, Philips, USA) by moving them from the treatment iso-center during actual treatment, we established re-treatment plan under the same conditions as actual treatment. Based on this, the dose distribution of normal organs and Planning Target Volume(PTV) was compared and analyzed. Results : In the scenario that performs CBCT every other day based on set-up error values when conducting CBCT every day, average X-axis : $0.2{\pm}0.73mm$, Y-axis : $0.1{\pm}0.58mm$, Z-axis : $-1.3{\pm}1.17mm$ difference was shown. This was applied to the treatment planning to establish re-treatment plan and dose distribution was evaluated and as a result, Dmean : -0.17 Gy, D99% : -0.71 Gy of PTV difference was shown in comparison with the result obtained when carrying out CBCT every day. As for normal organs, V66 : 1.55% of rectal wall, V66 : -0.76% of bladder difference was shown. Conclusion : In case of a CBCT perform every other day could reduce exposure dose and additional treatment time. And it is thought to be able to consider the application depending on the condition of the patient because the difference in the dose distribution of normal organs, PTV is not large.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2012

Purpose: To evaluate dose distribution differences when the dose rates are randomly changed in intensity-modulated radiation therapy using a dynamic multileafcollimator. Materials and Methods: Two IMRT treatment plans including small-field and large-field plans were made using a commercial treatment planning system (Eclipse, Varian, Palo Alto, CA). Each plan had three sub-plans according to various dose rates of 100, 400, and 600 MU/min. A chamber array (2D-Array Seven729, PTW-Freiburg) was positioned between solid water phantom slabs to give measurement depth of 5 cm and backscattering depth of 5 cm. Beam deliveries were performed on the array detector using a 6 MV beam of a linear accelerator (Clinac 21EX, Varian, Palo Alto, CA) equipped with 120-leaf MLC (Millenium 120, Varian). At first, the beam was delivered with same dose rates as planned to obtain reference values. After the standard measurements, dose rates were then changed as follows: 1) for plans with 100 MU/min, dose rate was varied to 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 MU/min, 2) for plans with 400 MU/min, dose rate was varied to 100, 200, 300, 500 and 600 MU/min, 3) for plans with 600 MU/min, dose rate was varied to 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 MU/min. Finally, using an analysis software (Verisoft 3.1, PTW-Freiburg), the dose difference and distribution between the reference and dose-rate-varied measurements was evaluated. Results: For the small field plan, the local dose differences were -0.8, -1.1, -1.3, -1.5, and -1.6% for the dose rate of 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 MU/min, respectively (for 100 MU/min reference), +0.9, +0.3, +0.1, -0.2, and -0.2% for the dose rate of 100, 200, 300, 500, 600 MU/min, respectively (for 400 MU/min reference) and +1.4, +0.8, +0.5, +0.3, and +0.2% for the dose rate of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 MU/min, respectively (for 600 MU/min reference). On the other hand, for the large field plan, the pass-rate differences were -1.3, -1.6, -1.8, -2.0, and -2.4% for the dose rate of 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 MU/min, respectively (for 100 MU/min reference), +2.0, +1.8, +0.5, -1.2, and -1.6% for the dose rate of 100, 200, 300, 500, 600 MU/min, respectively (for 400 MU/min reference) and +1.5, +1.9, +1.7, +1.9, and +1.2% for the dose rate of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 MU/min, respectively (for 600 MU/min reference). In short, the dose difference of dose-rate variation was measured to the -2.4~+2.0%. Conclusion: Using the Varian linear accelerator with 120 MLC, the IMRT dose distribution is differed a little <(${\pm}3%$) even though the dose-rate is changed.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.63-70
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was compare to the patient setup deviation of two different type thermoplastic immobilization masks for glottis cancer in the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A total of 16 glottis cancer cases were divided into two groups based on applied mask type: standard or alternative group. The mean error (M), three-dimensional setup displacement error (3D-error), systematic error (${\Sigma}$), random error (${\sigma}$) were calculated for each group, and also analyzed setup margin (mm). The 3D-errors were $5.2{\pm}1.3mm$ and $5.9{\pm}0.7mm$ for the standard and alternative groups, respectively; the alternative group was 13.6% higher than the standard group. The systematic errors in the roll angle and the x, y, z directions were $0.8^{\circ}$, 1.7 mm, 1.0 mm, and 1.5 mm in the alternative group and $0.8^{\circ}$, 1.1 mm, 1.8 mm, and 2.0 mm in the alternative group. The random errors in the x, y, z directions were 10.9%, 1.7%, and 23.1% lower in the alternative group than in the standard group. However, absolute rotational angle (i.e., roll) in the alternative group was 12.4% higher than in the standard group. For calculated setup margin, the alternative group in x direction was 31.8% lower than in standard group. In contrast, the y and z direction were 52.6% and 21.6% higher than in the standard group. Although using a modified thermoplastic immobilization mask could be affect patient setup deviation in terms of numerical results, various point of view for an immobilization masks has need to research in terms of clinic issue.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.269-276
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.193-200
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to present commissioning results of the ViewRay system. We verified safety functions of the ViewRay system. For imaging system, we acquired signal to noise ratio (SNR) and image uniformity. In addition, we checked spatial integrity of the image. Couch movement accuracy and coincidence of isocenters (radiation therapy system, imaging system and virtual isocneter) was verified. Accuracy of MLC positioing was checked. We performed reference dosimetry according to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 51 (TG-51) in water phantom for head 1 and 3. The deviations between measurements and calculation of percent depth dose (PDD) and output factor were evaluated. Finally, we performed gamma evaluations with a total of 8 IMRT plans as an end-to-end (E2E) test of the system. Every safety system of ViewRay operated properly. The values of SNR and Uniformity met the tolerance level. Every point within 10 cm and 17.5 cm radii about the isocenter showed deviations less than 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The average couch movement errors in transverse (x), longitudinal (y) and vertical (z) directions were 0.2 mm, 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The deviations between radiation isocenter and virtual isocenter in x, y and z directions were 0 mm, 0 mm and 0.3 mm, respectively. Those between virtual isocenter and imaging isocenter were 0.6 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The average MLC positioning errors were less than 0.6 mm. The deviations of output, PDDs between mesured vs. BJR supplement 25, PDDs between measured and calculated and output factors of each head were less than 0.5%, 1%, 1% and 2%, respectively. For E2E test, average gamma passing rate with 3%/3 mm criterion was $99.9%{\pm}0.1%$.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.131-135
• /
• 2006

A commercial ion chamber matrix was examined the characteristics and its performance for radiotherapy qualify assurance. The device was the I'mRT 2D-MatriXX (Scanditronix-Wellhofer, Schwarzenbruck, Germany). The 2D-MatriXX device consists of a 1020 vented ion chamber array, arranged in $24{\times}24cm^2$ matrix. Each ion chamber has a volume of $0.08cm^3$, spacing of 0.762 cm and minimum sampling time of 20 ms. For the investigation of the characteristics, dose linearity, output factor, short-term reproducibility and dose rate dependency were tested. In the testing of dose linearity. It has shown a good signal linearity within 1% in the range of $1{\sim}800$cGy. Dose rate dependency was found to be lower than 0.4% (Range: 100-600 Mu/min) relative to a dose rate of 300 Mu/min as a reference. Output factors matched very well within 0.5% compared with commissioned beam data using a ionization chamber (CC01, Scanditronix-Wellhofer, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) in the range of field sizes $3{\times}3{\sim}24{\times}24cm^2$. Short-term reproducibility (6 times with a interval of 15 minute) was also shown a good agreement within 0.5%, when the temperature and the pressure were corrected by each time of measurement. in addition, we compared enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW, Varian, Palo Alto, USA) profiles from calculated values in the radiation planning system with those from measurements of the MatriXX. Furthermore, anon-uniform IMRT dose fluence was tested. All the comparison studies have shown good agreements. In this study, the MatriXX was evaluated as a reliable dosimeter, and it could be used as a simplistic and convenient tool for radiotherapy qualify assurance.