• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The pre-treatment QA using Portal dosimetry for Volumetric Arc Therapy To analyze whether maintaining the reproducibility depending on various factors. Materials and Methods : Test was used for TrueBeam STx$^{TM}$ (Ver.1.5, Varian, USA). Varian Eclipse Treatment planning system(TPS) was used for planning with total of seven patients include head and neck cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and cervical cancer was established for a Portal dosimetry QA plan. In order to measure these plans, Portal Dosimetry application (Ver.10) (Varian) and Portal Vision aS1000 Imager was used. Each Points of QA was determined by dividing, before and after morning treatment, and the after afternoon treatment ended (after 4 hours). Calibration of EPID(Dark field correction, Flood field correction, Dose normalization) was implemented before Every QA measure points. MLC initialize was implemented after each QA points and QA was retried. Also before QA measurements, Beam Ouput at the each of QA points was measured using the Water Phantom and Ionization chamber(IBA dosimetry, Germany). Results : The mean values of the Gamma pass rate(GPR, 3%, 3mm) for every patients between morning, afternoon and evening was 97.3%, 96.1%, 95.4% and the patient's showing maximum difference was 95.7%, 94.2% 93.7%. The mean value of GPR before and after EPID calibration were 95.94%, 96.01%. The mean value of Beam Output were 100.45%, 100.46%, 100.59% at each QA points. The mean value of GPR before and after MLC initialization were 95.83%, 96.40%. Conclusion : Maintain the reproducibility of the Portal Dosimetry as a VMAT QA tool required management of the various factors that can affect the dosimetry.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.28-34
• /
• 2011

The measurement-based verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a time-and labor-consuming procedure. Instead, this study aims to develop a MU fluence reconstruction method for IMRT QA. Total actual fluences from treatment planning system (TPS, Eclipse 8.6, Varian) were selected as a reference. Delivered leaf positions according to MU were extracted by the dynalog file generated after IMRT delivery. An in-house software was develop to reconstruct MU fluence from the acquired delivered leaf position data using MATLAB. We investigated five patient's plans delivered by both step-and-shoot IMRT and sliding window technologies. The total actual fluence was compared with the MU fluence reconstructed by using commercial software (Verisoft 3.1, PTW) and gamma analysis method (criteria: 3%/3 mm and 2%/1 mm). Gamma pass rates were $97.8{\pm}1.33$% and the reconstructed fluence was shown good agreement with RTP-based actual fluence. The fluence from step and shoot IMRT was shown slightly higher agreement with the actual fluence than that from sliding window IMRT. If moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations, the developed method can be used for IMRT QA. A point dose calculation method from reconstructed fluences is under development for the routine IMRT QA purpose.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.16 no.7
• /
• pp.863-870
• /
• 2022

DLG (Dosimetric Leaf Gap) and transmission factor are important parameters of MLC modeling in treatment planning system. In this study, DLG and transmission factor of HD-MLC were measured using detector with different measuring volumes, and the accuracy of the treatment plans was evaluated according to the DLG values. DLG was measured using the dynamic sweeping gap method with Semiflux3D and MicroDiamond detectors. Then, 10 radiation treatment plans were generated to optimize the DLG value and compared with the measurement results. Photon energies 6, 8, 10 MV, the DLG measured by Semiflux3D were 0.76, 0.83, and 0.85 mm, and DLG measured by MicroDiamond were 0.78, 0.86, and 0.9 mm. All plans were measured by portal dosimetry and analyzed using Gamma Evaluation. In the 6 MV photon beams, the average gamma passing rate were 94.3% and 98.4% for DLG 0.78 mm and 1.15 mm. In the 10 MV photon beam, the average gamma passing rate were 91.2% and 97.6% for DLG 0.9 mm and 1.25 mm. HD-MLC needs accurate modeling in the treatment planning system. DLG could be used measured data using small volume detector. However, for better radiation therapy, DLG should be optimized at the commissioning stage of LINAC.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.14-21
• /
• 2019

Purpose: To report the initial experience of patient-specific quality assurance (pQA) for the wobbling and line-scanning proton therapy at Samsung Medical Center. Materials and Methods: The pQA results of 89 wobbling treatments with 227 fields and 44 line-scanning treatments with 118 fields were analyzed from December 2015 to June 2016. For the wobbling method, proton range and spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) width were verified. For the line-scanning method, output and two-dimensional dose distribution at multiple depths were verified by gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criterion. Results: The average range difference was -0.44 mm with a standard deviation (SD) of 1.64 mm and 0.1 mm with an SD of 0.53 mm for the small and middle wobbling radii, respectively. For the line-scanning method, the output difference was within ${\pm}3%$. The gamma passing rates were over 95% with 3%/3 mm criterion for all depths. Conclusions: For the wobbling method, proton range and SOBP width were within the tolerance levels. For the line-scanning method, the output and two-dimensional dose distribution showed excellent agreement with the treatment plans.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.219-228
• /
• 2012

The tangential breast intensity modulated radiotherapy (T-B IMRT) technique, which uses the same tangential fields as conventional 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) plans with physical wedges, was analyzed in terms of the calculated dose distribution feature and dosimetric accuracy of beam delivery during treatment. T-B IMRT plans were prepared for 15 patients with breast cancer who were already treated with conventional 3D-CRT. The homogeneity of the dose distribution to the target volume was improved, and the dose delivered to the normal tissues and critical organs was reduced compared with that in 3D-CRT plans. Quality assurance (QA) plans with the appropriate phantoms were used to analyze the dosimetric accuracy of T-B IMRT. An ionization chamber placed at the hole of an acrylic cylindrical phantom was used for the point dose measurement, and the mean error from the calculated dose was $0.7{\pm}1.4%$. The accuracy of the dose distribution was verified with a 2D diode detector array, and the mean pass rate calculated from the gamma evaluation was $97.3{\pm}2.9%$. We confirmed the advantages of a T-B IMRT in the dose distribution and verified the dosimetric accuracy from the QA performance which should still be regarded as an important process even in the simple technique as T-B IMRT in order to maintain a good quality.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.111-121
• /
• 2017

Verification of dose distribution is an essential part of ensuring the treatment planning system's (TPS) calculated dose will achieve the desired outcome in radiation therapy. Each measurement have uncertainty associated with it. It is desirable to reduce the measurement uncertainty. A best approach is to reduce the uncertainty associated with each step of the process to keep the total uncertainty under acceptable limits. Point dose patient specific quality assurance (QA) is recommended by American Association of Medical Physicists (AAPM) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) for all the complex radiation therapy treatment techniques. Relative and absolute point dose measurement methods are used to verify the TPS computed dose. Relative and absolute point dose measurement techniques have a number of steps to measure the point dose which includes chamber cross calibration, electrometer reading, chamber calibration coefficient, beam quality correction factor, reference conditions, influences quantities, machine stability, nominal calibration factor (for relative method) and absolute dose calibration of machine. Keeping these parameters in mind, the estimated relative percentage uncertainty associated with the absolute point dose measurement is 2.1% (k=1). On the other hand, the relative percentage uncertainty associated with the relative point dose verification method is estimated to 1.0% (k=1). To compare both point dose measurement methods, 13 head and neck (H&N) IMRT patients were selected. A point dose for each patient was measured with both methods. The average percentage difference between TPS computed dose and measured absolute relative point dose was 1.4% and 1% respectively. The results of this comparative study show that while choosing the relative or absolute point dose measurement technique, both techniques can produce similar results for H&N IMRT treatment plans. There is no statistically significant difference between both point dose verification methods based upon the t-test for comparing two means.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.280-285
• /
• 2015

In radiation therapy fields, a brachytherapy is a treatment that kills lesion of cells by inserting a radioisotope that keeps emitting radiation into the body. We currently verify the consistency of radiation treatment plan and dose distribution through film/screen system (F/S system), provide therapy after checking dose. When we check dose distribution, F/S systems have radiation signal distortion because there is low resolution by penumbra depending on the condition of film developed. In this study, We fabricated a $HgI_2$ Semiconductor radiation sensor for base study in order that we verify the real dose distribution weather it's same as plans or not in brachytherapy. Also, we attempt to evaluate the feasibility of QA system by utilizing and evaluating the sensor to brachytherapy source. As shown in the result of detected signal with various source-to-detector distance (SDD), we quantitatively verified the real range of treatment which is also equivalent to treatment plans because only the low signal estimated as scatters was measured beyond the range of treatment. And the result of experiment that we access reproducibility on the same condition of ${\gamma}$-ray, we have made sure that the CV (coefficient of variation) is within 1.5 percent so we consider that the $HgI_2$ sensor is available at QA of brachytherapy based on the result.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.61-66
• /
• 2017

The aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics of portal dosimetry in comparison with the MapCHECK2 measurments. In this study, a total of 65 treatment plans including both volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) were retrospectively selected and analyzed (45 VMAT plans and 20 IMRT plans). A total of 4 types of linac models (VitalBeam, Trilogy, Clinac 21EXS, and Clianc iX) were used for the comparison between portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements. The VMAT plans were delivered with two VitalBeam linacs (VitalBeam1 and VitalBeam2) and one Trilogy while the IMRT plans were delivered with one Clinac 21EXS and one Clinacl iX. The global gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and the MapCHECK2 measurements were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 3%/3 mm for IMRT while those were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 2%/2 mm for VMAT. Spearman's correlation coefficients (r) were calculated between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. For VMAT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with the VitalBeam1, VitalBeam2, and Trilogy were $97.3%{\pm}3.5%$, $97.1%{\pm}3.4%$, and $97.5%{\pm}1.9%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.8%{\pm}2.5%$, $96.3%{\pm}2.7%$, and $97.4%{\pm}1.3%$, respectively. For IMRT, the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry with Clinac 21EXS and Clinac iX were $99.7%{\pm}0.3%$ and $99.8%{\pm}0.2%$, respectively. Those of the MapCHECK2 measurements were $96.5%{\pm}3.3%$ and $97.7%{\pm}3.2%$, respectively. Except for the result with the Trilogy, no correlations were observed between the gamma passing rates of portal dosimetry and those of the MapCHECK2 measurements. Therefore, both the MapCHECK2 measurements and portal dosimetry can be used as an alternative to each other for patient-specific QA for both IMRT and VMAT.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.255-263
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient specific quality assurance (QA) results of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) through the AAPM Task Group Report 119. Using the treatment planning system, both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were established. The absolute dose and relative dose for the target and OAR were measured by using an ion chamber and the bi-planar diode array, respectively. The plan evaluation was used by the Dose volume histogram (DVH) and the dose verification was implemented by compare the measured value with the calculated value. For the evaluation of plan, in case of prostate, both IMRT and VMAT were closed the goal of target and OARs. In case of H&N and Multi-target, IMRT was not reached the goal of target, but VMAT was reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(easy), both were reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(hard), both were reached the goal of target but not reached the goal of OARs. For the evaluation of absolute dose, in case of IMRT, the mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.24{\pm}2.06%$ and $1.4{\pm}2.9%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 3.65% and 4.39% for target and OAR, respectively. In case of VMAT the mean of relative error was $2.06{\pm}0.64%$ and $2.21{\pm}0.74%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 4.09% and 3.04% for target and OAR, respectively. For the evaluation of relative dose, in case of IMRT, the average percentage of passing gamma criteria (3mm/3%) were $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ and the confidence limits were 3.78%. In case of VMAT, the average percentage were $98.2{\pm}1.1%$ and the confidence limits were 3.95%. We performed IMRT and VMAT patient specific QA using TG-119 based procedure, all analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119. So, the IMRT and VMAT of our institution was confirmed the accuracy.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.145-156
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of Split VMAT planning(Contouring rectum divided into an upper and a lower for reduce rectum dose) compare to Conventional VMAT planning(Contouring whole rectum) for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. Materials and Methods : A total of 9 cases were enrolled. Each case received radiotherapy with Split VMAT planning to the prostate involving pelvic lymph nodes. Treatment was delivered using TrueBeam STX(Varian Medical Systems, USA) and planned on Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28), AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). Lower rectum contour was defined as starting 1cm superior and ending 1cm inferior to the prostate PTV, upper rectum is a part, except lower rectum from the whole rectum. Split VMAT plan parameters consisted of 10MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ arcs. Each arc had $30^{\circ}$ and $30^{\circ}$ collimator angle, respectively. An SIB(Simultaneous Integrated Boost) treatment prescription was employed delivering 50.4Gy to pelvic lymph nodes and 63~70Gy to the prostate in 28 fractions. $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum on Split VMAT plan was applied for DVC(Dose Volume Constraint) of the whole rectum for Conventional VMAT plan. In addition, all parameters were set to be the same of existing treatment plans. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, all plans were optimized and calculated twice respectively using a 0.2cm grid. All plans were normalized to the prostate $PTV_{100%}$ = 90% or 95%. A comparison of $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, upperr ectum, lower rectum, and bladder, $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, total MU and H.I.(Homogeneity Index) and C.I.(Conformity Index) of the PTV was used for technique evaluation. All Split VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : Using DVH analysis, a difference between the Conventional and the Split VMAT plans was demonstrated. The Split VMAT plan demonstrated better in the $D_{mean}$ of whole rectum, Up to 134.4 cGy, at least 43.5 cGy, the average difference was 75.6 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of upper rectum, Up to 1113.5 cGy, at least 87.2 cGy, the average difference was 550.5 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of lower rectum, Up to 100.5 cGy, at least -34.6 cGy, the average difference was 34.3 cGy and in the $D_{mean}$ of bladder, Up to 271 cGy, at least -55.5 cGy, the average difference was 117.8 cGy and in $V_{50%}$ of upper rectum, Up to 63.4%, at least 3.2%, the average difference was 23.2%. There was no significant difference on H.I., and C.I. of the PTV among two plans. The Split VMAT plan is average 77 MU more than another. All IMRT verification gamma test results for the Split VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2 mm / 2%. Conclusion : As a result, the Split VMAT plan appeared to be more favorable in most cases than the Conventional VMAT plan for prostate cancer radiotherapy involving pelvic lymph nodes. By using the split VMAT planning technique it was possible to reduce the upper rectum dose, thus reducing whole rectal dose when compared to conventional VMAT planning. Also using the split VMAT planning technique increase the treatment efficiency.