• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.83-92
• /
• 2022

Purpose: To evaluate usefulness of Tomotherapy and Halcyon VMAT treatment in radiation therapy for bi-breast cancer Materials and Methods: For 10 patients with bi-breast cancer, volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) treatment plan was established using helical Tomotherapy(Accuray. USA) with field width of 5.0-cm and pitch of 0.287, and Halcyon(Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, Version 3.0 USA) of 6arc and 8arc. Prescribed dose was 42.4 Gy/16, and V _40.3Gy of Planning Target Volume(PTV) was 90%. The quality of plan was evaluated by comparing the dose to tumor and normal organs, and the efficiency was evaluated by comparing total MU and beam on time. Results: About three treatment plans(Tomotherapy, Halcyon 6Arc VMAT, Halcyon 8Arc VMAT) , the mean homogeneity index(H.I) of PTV were 1.07, 1.10, 1.11, and the mean conformity index(C.I) of PTV were 1.21, 1.16, 1.17, respectively. The average value of the dose assessment item for a normal organ is V _5Gy(%) of both lung was 36.3, 31.2, 29.7, and V _15Gy(%) were 18.6, 15.5, 14.6, respectively. The mean heart dose(Gy) were 4.17, 2.69, 2.51. Total MU were (7498.6, 2494.2, 2471.5), and beam on time(sec) were 462.5, 195.4, 198.0. Conclusion: Halcyon VMAT showed similar quality of treatment plan compared to helical Tomotherapy, while also protecting normal organs. In addition, the efficiency of radiotherapy increased due to a decrease in Beam On Time and MU.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2011

Purpose: Helical Tomotherapy allows only coplanar beam delivery because it does not allow couch rotation. We investigated a method to introduce non-coplanar beam by tilting a patient's head for Tomotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare intrafractional movement during Tomotherapy between coplanar and non-coplanar patient's setup. Materials and Methods: Helical Tomotherapy was used for treating eight patients with intracranial tumor. The subjects were divided into three groups: one group (coplanar) of 2 patients who lay on S-plate with supine position and wore thermoplastic mask for immobilizing the head, second group (non-coplanar) of 3 patients who lay on S-plate with supine position and whose head was tilted with Variable Axis Baseplate and wore thermoplastic mask, and third group (non-coplanar plus mouthpiece) of 3 patients whose head was tilted and wore a mouthpiece immobilization device and thermoplastic mask. The patients were treated with Tomotherapy after treatment planning with Tomotherapy Planning System. Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) was performed before and after treatment, and the intrafractional error was measured with lateral(X), longitudinal(Y), vertical(Z) direction movements and vector ($\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$) value for assessing overall movement. Results: Intrafractional error was compared among three groups by taking the error of MVCT taken after the treatment. As the correction values (X, Y, Z) between MVCT image taken after treatment and CT-simulation image are close to zero, the patient movement is small. When the mean values of movement of each direction for non-coplanar setup were compared with coplanar setup group, X-axis movement was decreased by 13%, but Y-axis and Z-axis movement were increased by 109% and 88%, respectively. Movements of Y-axis and Z-axis with non-coplanar setup were relatively greater than that of X-axis since a tilted head tended to slip down. The mean of X-axis movement of the group who used a mouthpiece was greater by 9.4% than the group who did not use, but the mean of Y-axis movement was lower by at least 64%, and the mean of Z-axis was lower by at least 67%, and the mean of Z-axis was lower by at least 67%, and the vector was lower by at least 59% with the use of a mouthpiece. Among these 8 patients, one patient whose tumor was located on left frontal lobe and left basal ganglia received reduced radiation dose of 38% in right eye, 23% in left eye, 30% in optic chiasm, 27% in brain stem, and 8% in normal brain with non-coplanar method. Conclusion: Tomotherapy only allows coplanar delivery of IMRT treatment. To complement this shortcoming, Tomotherapy can be used with non-coplanar method by artificially tilting the patient's head and using an oral immobilization instrument to minimize the movement of patient, when intracranial tumor locates near critical organs or has to be treated with high dose radiation.

• Journal of Magnetics
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.425-430
• /
• 2016

The aim of this study was to measure the setup variation for X (lateral), Y (longitude), and Z (vertical) by taking magnetic megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) before treating the brain, oropharynx, lung, and prostate patients on helical tomotherapy. In this study, 30 patients were chosen for each of the treatment areas, and their skin was labeled with a mark on a treatment planning reference point when taking CT. We preceded MVCT prior to tomotherapy and then conducted an auto registration based on the bony landmarks; image registration was used for automatically matching the patient's setup. Lastly, we confirmed and evaluated the translation coordinates of the images for 30 patients. The following shows the comparison result of the setup errors of each part: X (lateral) showed the highest setup errors with $3.44{\pm}2.05$ from Lung; Y (longitude) showed the highest setup errors showing $3.40{\pm}2.87mm$ from Prostate; and Z (vertical) showed the highest setup errors showing $6.62{\pm}4.38mm$ from Lung. This result verifies that the setup error can be prevented by taking MVCT before the treatment, and Planning Target Volume (PTV) margins can be reduced by referring to the resulting value of each treatment part. Ultimately, the dosage of the normal organs can be decreased as well as any side effects.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.439-448
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study was to analyze the results from statistical process control (SPC) to recommend upper and lower control limits for planning parameters based on delivery quality assurance (DQA) results and establish our institutional guidelines regarding planning parameters for helical tomotherapy (HT). A total of 53 brain, 41 head and neck (H & N), and 51 pelvis cases who had passing or failing DQA measurements were selected. The absolute point dose difference (DD) and the global gamma passing rate (GPR) for all patients were analyzed. Control charts were used to evaluate upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL) for all assessed treatment planning parameters. Treatment planning parameters were analyzed to provide its range for DQA pass cases. We confirmed that the probability of DQA failure was higher when the proportion of leaf open time (LOT) below 100 ms was greater than 30%. LOT and gantry period (GP) were significant predictor for DQA failure using the SPC method. We investigated the availability of the SPC statistic method to establish the local planning guideline based on DQA results for HT system. The guideline of each planning parameter in HT may assist in the prediction of DQA failure using the SPC statistic method in the future.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.106-111
• /
• 2015

In Tomotherapy the couch sags during the treatment due to the weight of the patient. In this study, we developed a simple method to obtain the amount of the sag and the pitch angle of the couch using the image processing technique of MVCT images in Tomotherapy. Using the method we evaluated the sag and pitch of couch for 22 head and neck patients and one craniospinal irradiation (CSI) patient. The sag and the average pitch angle of couch were 0.40~1.54 mm and $0.7^{\circ}$ for head and neck patients, respectively. For head and neck patients, the sag increased as the longitudinal length of the irradiation volume increased and the pitch angle showed no relationship with the longitudinal length. For the CSI patient the sag was 4.97 mm. Using the method the amount of the couch sag could be measured easily and the measured data could be useful in determination of margins considering the table sag error.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.273-280
• /
• 2014

Purpose : To verify the skin dose in Tomotherapy-based radiation treatment according to the change in tumor locations, skin dose was measured by using Gafchromic EBT3 film and compared with the planned doses to find out the gap between them. Materials and Methods : In this study, to measure the skin dose, I'm RT Phantom(IBA Dosimetry, Germany) was utilized. After obtaining the 2.5mm CT images, tumor locations and skin dose measuring points were set by using Pinnacle(ver 9.2, Philips Medical System, USA). The tumor location was decided to be 5mm and 10mm away from surface of the phantom and center. Considering the attenuation of a Tomo-couch, we ensured a symmetric placement between the ceiling and floor directions of the phantom. The measuring point of skin doses was set to have 3mm and 5mm thickness from the surface. Measurement was done 3 times. By employing TomoHD(TomoHD treatment system, Tomotherapy Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA), we devised Tomotherapy plans, measured 3 times by inserting Gafchromic EBT3 film into the phantom and compared the measurement with the skin dose treatment plans. Results : The skin doses in the upper part of the phantom, when the tumor was located in the center, were found to be 7.53 cGy and 7.25 cGy in 5mm and 3mm respectively. If placed 5mm away from the skin in the ceiling direction, doses were 18.06 cGy and 16.89 cGy; if 10mm away, 20.37 cGy and 18.27 cGy, respectively. The skin doses in the lower part of the phantom, when the tumor was located in the center, recorded 8.82 cGy and 8.29 cGy in 5mm and 3mm, each; if located 5mm away from the lower part skin, 21.69 cGy and 19.78 cGy were respectively recorded; and if 10mm away, 20.48 cGy and 19.57 cGy were recorded. If the tumor was placed in the center, skin doses were found to increase by 3.2~17.1% whereas if the tumor is 5mm away from the ceiling part, the figure decreased to 2.8~9.0%. To the Tomo-couch direction, skin doses showed an average increase of 11% or over, compared to the planned treatment. Conclusion : This study found gaps between planned skin doses and actual doses in the Tomotherapy treatment planning. Especially to the Tomo-cocuh direction, skin doses were found to be larger than the planned doses. Thus, during the treatment of tumors near the Tomo-couch, doses will need to be more accurately calculated and more efforts to verify skin doses will be required as well.

• 대한방사선방어학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.11a
• /
• pp.128-129
• /
• 2009

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2006.08a
• /
• pp.72-72
• /
• 2006

• 대한두경부종양학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2008.11a
• /
• pp.271-271
• /
• 2008

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.42-46
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to perform a survey of the radiation shielding design goals (P) and workload (W) based on the radiation safety reports concerned with structural shielding design for the IMRT treatment technique in Tomotherapy vaults. The values of the P and W factors as well as of a verified concrete thickness of the ceiling, bottom, sidewalls (sidewall-1 and sidewall-2), and door have been obtained from radiation safety reports for a total of 16 out of 20 vaults. The recommended and most widely used report for P values was the NCRP No. 151 report, which stated that the P factor in controlled and uncontrolled areas was 0.1 and 0.02 mSv/week, respectively. The range of the W factor was 600~14,720 Gy/week. The absorbed dose delivered per patient was 2~3 Gy. The maximum number of patients treated per day was 10~70. The quality assurance (QA) dose was 100~1,000 Gy/week. Fifteen values of the IMRT factor (F) were mostly used but a maximum of 20 values was also used. The concrete thickness for primary structures including the ceiling, bottom, sidewalls, and door was sufficient for radiation shielding. The P and W factors affect the calculation of the structural shielding design, and several parameters, such as the absorbed dose, patients, QA dose, days and F factor can be varied according to the type of shielding structure. To ensure the safety of the radiation shielding, it is necessary to use the NCRP No. 151 report for the standard recommendation values.