• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.67-72
• /
• 2011

Accuracy control of Linear accelerator installed in OBI is done daily and weekly and importance of accuracy multiplies exponentially at that moment. Purpose of this experiment is everyday and twice a week over a four month period (march~june) 2009 year to confirm maintenance of accuracy through Quality control of OBI. In short, measurement of exponentially multiplying accuracy of OBI and regular accuracy control was able to maintain accuracy from the center of treatment within 0.1 cm. Therefore, evaluation of exponentially multiplying accuracy using OBI accuracy control linear accelerator phantom on daily, weekly basis was confirmed.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.54-61
• /
• 2007

[ $\underline{Purpose}$ ]: The purpose of this study is to develop a practical method for determining accurate marker positions for prostate cancer radiotherapy using CT images and kV x-ray images obtained from the use of the on- board imager (OBI). $\underline{Materials\;and\;Methods}$: Three gold seed markers were implanted into the reference position inside a prostate gland by a urologist. Multiple digital image processing techniques were used to determine seed marker position and the center-of-mass (COM) technique was employed to determine a representative reference seed marker position. A setup discrepancy can be estimated by comparing a computed $COM_{OBI}$ with the reference $COM_{CT}$. A proposed algorithm was applied to a seed phantom and to four prostate cancer patients with seed implants treated in our clinic. $\underline{Results}$: In the phantom study, the calculated $COM_{CT}$ and $COM_{OBI}$ agreed with $COM_{actual}$ within a millimeter. The algorithm also could localize each seed marker correctly and calculated $COM_{CT}$ and $COM_{OBI}$ for all CT and kV x-ray image sets, respectively. Discrepancies of setup errors between 2D-2D matching results using the OBI application and results using the proposed algorithm were less than one millimeter for each axis. The setup error of each patient was in the range of $0.1{\pm}2.7{\sim}1.8{\pm}6.6\;mm$ in the AP direction, $0.8{\pm}1.6{\sim}2.0{\pm}2.7\;mm$ in the SI direction and $-0.9{\pm}1.5{\sim}2.8{\pm}3.0\;mm$ in the lateral direction, even though the setup error was quite patient dependent. $\underline{Conclusion}$: As it took less than 10 seconds to evaluate a setup discrepancy, it can be helpful to reduce the setup correction time while minimizing subjective factors that may be user dependent. However, the on-line correction process should be integrated into the treatment machine control system for a more reliable procedure.