• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.43-50
• /
• 2014

In case of all patients who receive radiation therapy, a treatment plan is established and all steps of treatment are planned in the same geometrical condition. In case of head and neck cancer patients who undergo simulated treatment through computed tomography (CT), patients are fixed onto a table for planning, but laid on the top of the treatment table in the radiation therapy room. This study excogitated and fabricated an adjustable holder for head and neck cancer patients to fix patient's position and geometrical discrepancies when performing radiation therapy on head and neck cancer patients, and compared the error before and after adjusting the position of patients due to difference in weight to evaluate the correlation between patients' weight and range of error. Computed tomography system(High Advantage, GE, USA) is used for phantom to maintain the supine position to acquire the images of the therapy site for IMRT. IMRT 4MV X-rays was used by applying the LINAC(21EX, Varian, U.S.A). Treatment planning system (Pinnacle, ver. 9.1h, Philips, Madison, USA) was used. The setup accuracy was compared with each measurement was repeated five times for each weight (0, 15, and 30Kg) and CBCT was performed 30 times to find the mean and standard deviation of errors before and after the adjustment of each weight. SPSS ver.19.0(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL,USA) statistics program was used to perform the Wilcoxon Rank test for significance evaluation and the Spearman analysis was used as the tool to analyze the significance evaluation of the correlation of weight. As a result of measuring the error values from CBCT before and after adjusting the position due to the weight difference, X,Y,Z axis was $0.4{\pm}0.8mm$, $0.8{\pm}0.4mm$, 0 for 0Kg before the adjustment. In 15Kg CBCT before and after adjusting the position due to the weight difference, X,Y,Z axis was $0.2{\pm}0.8mm$, $1.2{\pm}0.4mm$, $2.0{\pm}0.4mm$. After adjusting position was X,Y,Z axis was $0.2{\pm}0.4mm$, $0.4{\pm}0.5mm$, $0.4{\pm}0.5mm$. In 30Kg CBCT before and after adjusting the position due to the weight difference, X,Y,Z axis was $0.8{\pm}0.4mm$, $2.4{\pm}0.5mm$, $4.4{\pm}0.8mm$. After adjusting position was X,Y,Z axis was $0.6{\pm}0.5mm$, $1.0{\pm}0mm$, $0.6{\pm}0.5mm$. When the holder for the head and neck cancer was used to adjust the ab.0ove error value, the error values from CBCT were $0.2{\pm}0.8mm$ for the X axis, $0.40{\pm}0.54mm$ for Y axis, and 0 for Z axis. As a result of statistically analyzing each value before and after the adjustment the value was significant with p<0.034 at the Z axis with 15Kg of weight and with p<0.038 and p<0.041 at the Y and Z axes respectively with 30Kg of weight. There was a significant difference with p<0.008 when the analysis was performed through Kruscal-Wallis in terms of the difference in the adjusted values of the three weight groups. As it could reduce the errors, patients' reproduction could be improved for more precise and accurate radiation therapy. Development of an adjustable device for head and neck cancer patients is significant because it improves the reproduction of existing equipment by reducing the errors in patients' position.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.275-286
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To setup procedures of quality assurance (OA) for implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) clinically, report OA procedures peformed for one patient with prostate cancer. Materials and methods : $P^3IMRT$ (ADAC) and linear accelerator (Siemens) with multileaf collimator are used to implement IMRT. At first, the positional accuracy, reproducibility of MLC, and leaf transmission factor were evaluated. RTP commissioning was peformed again to consider small field effect. After RTP recommissioning, a test plan of a C-shaped PTV was made using 9 intensity modulated beams, and the calculated isocenter dose was compared with the measured one in solid water phantom. As a patient-specific IMRT QA, one patient with prostate cancer was planned using 6 beams of total 74 segmented fields. The same beams were used to recalculate dose in a solid water phantom. Dose of these beams were measured with a 0.015 cc micro-ionization chamber, a diode detector, films, and an array detector and compared with calculated one. Results : The positioning accuracy of MLC was about 1 mm, and the reproducibility was around 0.5 mm. For leaf transmission factor for 10 MV photon beams, interleaf leakage was measured $1.9\%$ and midleaf leakage $0.9\%$ relative to $10\times\;cm^2$ open filed. Penumbra measured with film, diode detector, microionization chamber, and conventional 0.125 cc chamber showed that $80\~20\%$ penumbra width measured with a 0.125 cc chamber was 2 mm larger than that of film, which means a 0.125 cc ionization chamber was unacceptable for measuring small field such like 0.5 cm beamlet. After RTP recommissioning, the discrepancy between the measured and calculated dose profile for a small field of $1\times1\;cm^2$ size was less than $2\%$. The isocenter dose of the test plan of C-shaped PTV was measured two times with micro-ionization chamber in solid phantom showed that the errors upto $12\%$ for individual beam, but total dose delivered were agreed with the calculated within $2\%$. The transverse dose distribution measured with EC-L film was agreed with the calculated one in general. The isocenter dose for the patient measured in solid phantom was agreed within $1.5\%$. On-axis dose profiles of each individual beam at the position of the central leaf measured with film and array detector were found that at out-of-the-field region, the calculated dose underestimates about $2\%$, at inside-the-field the measured one was agreed within $3\%$, except some position. Conclusion : It is necessary more tight quality control of MLC for IMRT relative to conventional large field treatment and to develop QA procedures to check intensity pattern more efficiently. At the conclusion, we did setup an appropriate QA procedures for IMRT by a series of verifications including the measurement of absolute dose at the isocenter with a micro-ionization chamber, film dosimetry for verifying intensity pattern, and another measurement with an array detector for comparing off-axis dose profile.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.115-122
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The aim of this study, evaluate the accuracy of HeaxPOD evo RT system using the non-coplanar beam. Materials and Methods : 13 treatment plans are used which applied non-coplanar beams and 10 treatment plans which coplanar beams are used. the correction value what adjust to 6D couch is determined by each patient's setup errors only rotation direction. The study executed followings. first, Applying the correction value, measure the point dose and calculate the ${\gamma}$-index(${\gamma}=3%$ / 3 mm, ${\gamma}=2%$ / 2 mm). second, acquire data as previous methods without correction by HexaPOD. Results : For comparing the two results, we find out the more precise applying HexaPOD by point dose 0.2% in coplanar and non-coplanar. in the case of ${\gamma}$-index<1(${\gamma}=3%$ / 3 mm), more precise 2.2% in coplanar and 7% in Non-coplanar. Particularly, ${\gamma}$-index<1(2% / 2 mm) show the difference 9.2% in coplanar and 15.1% non-coplanar between apply HexaPOD and dose not apply HexaPOD. Conclusion : Using the HexaPOD is more precise than without HexaPOD. It suggests that HexaPOD evo RT system is very useful for precise and high dose delivery.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.69-76
• /
• 1996

Purpose : The aim of this study is to investigate the random and systematic errors and tumor movement using electronic portal imaging device in lung cancer patients for the adequate margin in the treatment planning of 3-dimensional conformal therapy. Material and Methods : The electronic portal imaging device is matrix ion chamber type(Portal Vision, Varian). Ten patients of lung cancer treated with chest irradiation were selected for this study. Patients were treated in the supine position without immobilization device. All treatments were delivered by an 10 MV linear accelerator that had the portal imaging system mounted to its ganrty. AP or PA field Portal images were only analyzed. Radiation therapy field included the tumor, mediastinum and supraclavicular lymph nodes. A total of 103 portal images were analyzed for set-up deviation and 10 multiple images were analyzed for tumor movement because of respiration and cardiac motion. Result : The average values of setup displacements in the x, y direction was 1.41 mm, 1 78 mm, respectively. The standard deviation of systematic component was 4.63 mm, 4.11 mm along the x, y axis, respectively while the random component was 4.17 mm in the x direction and 3.31 mm in the y direction. The average displacement from respiratory movement was 12.2 mm with a standard deviation of 4.03 mm. Conclusion : The overall set-up displacement includes both random and systematic component and respiratory movement. About 10 mm, 25 mm margins along x, y axis which considered the set-up displacement and tumor movement were required for initial 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning in the lung cancer patients and portal images should be made and analyzed during first week of treatment, individually.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.280-288
• /
• 2008

Purpose: To identify the inter-fractional shift pattern and to assess an adequate treatment margin in the radiotherapy of a liver tumor using mega-voltage computed tomography (MVCT) of a tomotherapy unit. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six patients were treated for liver tumors by tomotherapy from April 2006 to August 2007. The MVCT images of each patient were analyzed from the $1^{st}$ to the $10^{th}$ fraction for the assessment of the daily liver shift by four groups based on Couinard's proposal. Daily setup errors were corrected by bony landmarks as a prerequisite. Subsequently, the anterior-, posterior-, right-, and left shifts of the liver edges were measured by maximum linear discrepancies between the kilo-voltage computed tomography (KVCT) image and MVCT image. All data were set in the 2-dimensional right angle coordinate system of the transverse section of each patient's body. Results: The liver boundary shift had different patterns for each group. In group II (segment 2, 3, and 4), the anterior mean shift was $2.80{\pm}1.73\;mm$ outwards, while the left mean shift was $2.23{\pm}1.37\;mm$ inwards. In group IV (segment 7 and 8), the anterior-, posterior-, right-, and left mean shifts were $0.15{\pm}3.93\;mm$ inwards, $3.15{\pm}6.58\;mm$ inwards, $0.60{\pm}3.58\;mm$ inwards, and $4.50{\pm}5.35\;mm$ inwards, respectively. The reduced volume in group II after MVCT reassessment might be a consequence of stomach toxicity. Conclusion: Inter-fractional liver shifts of each group based on Couinard's proposal were somewhat systematic despite certain variations observed in each patient. The geometrical deformation of the liver by respiratory movement can cause shrinkage in the left margins of liver. We recommend a more sophisticated approach in free-breathing mode when irradiating the left lobe of liver in order to avoid stomach toxicity.

• 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.