• 대한방사선방어학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.11a
• /
• pp.48-49
• /
• 2009

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.4
• /
• pp.571-575
• /
• 2016

Monte Carlo simulations are widely used as the most accurate technique for dose calculation in radiation therapy. In this paper, the GATE6(Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission ver.6) code was employed to calculate the dosimetric performance of the photon beams from a linear accelerator(LINAC). The treatment head of a Varian 21EX Clinac was modeled including the major geometric structures within the beam path such as a target, a primary collimator, a flattening filter, a ion chamber, and jaws. The 6 MV photon spectra were characterized in a standard $10{\times}10cm^2$ field at 100 cm source-to-surface distance(SSD) and subsequent dose estimations were made in a water phantom. The measurements of percentage depth dose and dose profiles were performed with 3D water phantom and the simulated data was compared to measured reference data. The simulated results agreed very well with the measured data. It has been found that the GATE6 code is an effective tool for dose optimization in radiotherapy applications.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.51-58
• /
• 2011

Purpose: In this study, we tried to check the usefulness of two Linear Accelerators, Clinac IX and 21EX (Varian, Palo Alto, CA), which are equipped in Ajou Medical Center. From 2008 to 2010, we evaluated the error range of Absolute Dose based on the daily output, which was measured by CHECKMATE$^{TM}$ (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL). Materials and Methods: For Daily Q.A, photon beams of two linear accelerators, 21EX and IX (6 MV and 10 MV, respectively) were measured daily by using CHECKMATE$^{TM}$ just before the treatment began, while the absolute dose was measured biweekly by using water phantom. We analyzed the data of measured values from the daily Q.A and the absolute dose from 2008 to 2010 for 21EX, and from 2009 to 2010 for IX. We utilized Excel 2007 (Microsoft, USA) to evaluate Average, Standard deviation and Confidence level of the data. Furthermore, in order to check the measured values of CHECKMATE$^{TM}$ and the significance of absolute dose, each error value was compared and analyzed. Results: During the observation period, the output of two equipment's absolute dose increased in process of time and in both 6 MV and 10 MV, there was a similar increasing trend. In addition, the error rate of the measured value of CHECKMATE$^{TM}$ and the value of absolute dose were under 0.34, which means that there is a similarity relationship between the two measured values. After checking that the measured value of CHECKMATE$^{TM}$ increased, We measured the absolute dose to adjust that. When the error range was close to 2~3%, the number of changing the output was four for 21EX and three for IX. Conclusion: As a result of measuring and analyzing the daily output changes for two years by using CHECKMATE$^{TM}$, we could find that there is a significance between the output which we should obey during Q.A, and the measured value of absolute dose within the error tolerance of 2~3%. Thus, the use of CHECKMATE$^{TM}$ can be positively considered for more efficient and reliable daily output verification of linear accelerator. It can also be a good standard for other medical centers to understand the trends of linear accelerator and to refer to for the correction of each output.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.218-222
• /
• 2010

As radiation is irradiated from various directions in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), longer treatment time than conventional treatment method is taken. In case of the patients who have problem to keep same posture for long time because of pain and injury, reducing treatment time through increased dose rate is a way for effective treatment. This study measured and found out the variation of dose and dose distribution in accordance with dose rate variation. IMRT treatment plan was set up to investigate from 5 directions - $0^{\circ}$, $72^{\circ}$, $144^{\circ}$, $216^{\circ}$, $288^{\circ}$ - using ECLIPSE system (Varian, SomaVision 6.5, USA). To confirm dose and dose rate in accordance with dose rate variation, dose rate was set up as 100, 300, 500 MU/min, and dose and dose distribution were measured using ionization chamber (PTW, TN31014) and film dosimeter (EDR2, Kodak). At this time, film dosimeter was inserted into acrylic phantom, then installed to run parallel with beam's irradiating direction, 21EX-S (Varian, USA) was utilized as linear accelerator for irradiation. The measured film dosimeter was analyzed using VXR-16 (Vidar System Corporation) to confirm dose distribution.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.131-139
• /
• 2011

A method to get a size of the radiation isocenter of linear accelerators using star-shot images was presented and a computer program was developed to automate the method. Accuracy of the method was verified. The developed program was used to measure sizes of the radiation isocenters for a Clinac 21EX (Varian, USA) using data of quality assurance (QA) performed from June 2008 to December 2010. To calculated the size of radiation isocenter, positions of two points on each central ray of the star-shot image were found and the equation of the central ray was determined using the positions of two points. Using the equations of central rays the radius of the minimum circle intersecting all the central rays, which is one half of the size of radiation isocenter, was calculated. The program measured x-intercepts and y-intercepts of the central rays within errors of 0.084 mm and sizes of radiation isocenters within 0.053 mm. All the errors were less than the spatial resolution of star-shot images 0.085 mm. The radiation isocenter sizes of Clinac 21EX were $0.33{\pm}0.27mm$, $0.71{\pm}0.36mm$, $0.50{\pm}0.16mm$ for collimator, gantry and couch respectively. During the measurement period all the measured sizes were less than 2.0 mm and within tolerance. The developed program could calculate the size of radiation isocenters and it would be helpful to routine QA.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.43-61
• /
• 2004

Purpose : For qualify improvement in radiotherapy, it is important to set up and evaluate equipment (linac) accurately. In addition, technicians are needed to be fully aware of the equipment's detailed quality and its manual. Therefore, the result of ATP is evaluated and introduced, in order that the technicians are skilled by participating in quality assurance (QA) and understanding the quality of the equipment before clinical use. Method and Material : QA for LINAC 21EX (Varian, US) was done with suppliers its procedure was divided into radiation survey, mechanical test, radiation isocenter test, bean performance, dosimetry, and enhanced dynamic wedge and using X-omat film (Kodak), multidata, densitometer, and electrometer. QA of MLC (Millennium, 120 leaf) attached to LINAC and EPID (Portal vision) were done separately. Result : The leakage dose by survey meter was below the tolerance. In mechanical test, collimater, gantry, and couch rotation were less than 1mm, and the angles were ${\pm}0.1^{\circ}$ for digital and ${\pm}0.5^{\circ}$ for mechanical. The alignment test of the light field and crosshair were evaluated less than 1mm. The (a)symmetrical jaw field was less than ${\pm}0.5mm$. The radiation isocenter test using X-mat film was less than 1mm. The consistency of light field and radiation field was less than ${\pm}0.1mm$. PDD for photon energy was less than ${\pm}1\%$ and for electron energy of $90\%,\;80\%,\;50\%,\;and\;30\%$ were evaluated within the tolerance. Flatness for photon and electron energy was evaluated $2.3\%$ (tolerance $3\%$) and $3\%$ (tolerance $4.5\%$), respectively, and symmetry was $0.45\%$ (tolerance $2\%$) and $0.3\%$ (tolerance $2\%$), respectively. Dosimetry test for short term, MU setting, rep rate, and dose rate accuracy of photon and electron energy was within the tolerance depending on energy, MU, and gantry angle. Conclusion : Accuracy and safety for clinical use of Clinac 21EX was verified through customer acceptance procedure and the quality of the equipment was found out. These can reduce the difficulties in using the equipment. Furthermore, it is useful for clinically treatment of patients by technicians' active participations.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.191-199
• /
• 2008

PTV considered for the energy, dose distribution exposed to lung and spinal cord, and the characteristic of DVH(Dose Volume Histogram) were compared and investigated by planning the intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) using the photon energies of 6 MV and 10 MV according to tumor location like as the anterior, middle, and posterior regions of lung, and the mediastinum region in lung cancer patients. Our institution installed the linear accelerator (Varian 21 EX-s, USA) equipped with 120 multileaf collimator for lung cancer patients, which is producing the photon energies of 6 MV and 10 MV, and radiation therapy planning was performed with ECLIPSE system (Varian, SomaVision 6.5, USA), which support inverse treatment planning. The tomographic images of 3 mm slice thickness for lung cancer patients were acquired using planning CT, and acquired tomographic images were sent to the Varis system, and then treatment planning was performed in the ECLIPSE system. The radiation treatment planning of the IMRT was processed from various angles according to the regions of the tumor, and using various beam lines according to the size and location of the tumor. The investigation of the characteristic of dose distributions for the energy of 6 MV and 10 MV according to tumor locations in lung cancer patients resulted that the maximum dose of 10 MV energy was 1.2% less than that of 6 MV energy without depending on the tumor location of lung cancer, and the reduction effects of MU were occurred from 10 to 25 MU. Radiation dose exposed to the lung satisfied the less 30% of V20, however radiation dose in 6 MV energy was from 0.1% to 0.5% less than that in 10 MV energy. Radiation dose exposed to the spinal cord for 6 MV energy was from 0.6% to 2.1% less than that for 6 MV energy.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.282-284
• /
• 2002

We have developed and used BISS as a radiation detector to verify patient dose and determine the physical characteristics of beams used in Stereotatic Radio Surgery(SRS) and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy(IMRT). In order to confirm the function and accuracy of our BISS, we simulate our measurements by BISS under the radiation of 6MV photons from a Varian Clinac 21EX equipped with a 60 leaf pairs MLC. For the simulation based on the Monte Carlo algorithm, which remains the most comprehensive and accurate theoretical method to verify beam profiles, we use the BEAM code. Compared with the measurements by BISS, our simulation of variously shaped phantom measurements show good agreements. Our simulation results can be used as a theoretical standard to compare and confirm measurements by BISS and other dosimeters such as ultramicro cylindrical ionization chamber(UCIC) and radiographic film.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.109-113
• /
• 2008

Purpose: To evaluate the detector dependency in the various collimator size for Stereotactic Radiosugery (SRS). Materials and Methods: This study was performed with 6 MV photon beam (Varian 21EX, Varian, US) and the measurement detectors are used by ion chamber CC01, CC13 (Wellhofer, Germany) and stereotactic diode detector (SFD, Wellhofer, Germany). SRS collimator size was used by ${\varphi}$5, 10, 20, 30 mm (Brain Lab, Germany). Percentage depth dose (PDD) was measured at SSD 100 cm and field size 10×10 cm from individual detectors. Ouput factor was measured by using same setup of PDD and with maximum dose depth. Data was normalized at field size $10{\times}10\;cm$. Beam profile was measured at SSD 100 cm in SRS collimator ${\varphi}$10, 30 mm and field $10{\times}10\;cm$ and a comparison of FWHM (full width half maximum), penumbra width (20~80%). Results: The CC13 detector was overestimated 16% than other detectors from the PDD in the 5 mm collimator. Output factors were underestimated CC01 28%, CC13 72% in the 5 mm collimator and CC01 9.6%, CC13 25% in the 10 mm collimator than the SFD. Maximum difference was 3% at the FWHM of the dose profile in the 10 mm collimator and difference of the 30 mm collimator was 0% at the FWHM. Penumbra width was increased CC01 122%, CC13 194% in the 10 mm collimator and CC01 68%, CC13 185% in the 30 mm collimator than the SFD. Conclusion: It is very important for accurate dosimetry to select a detector in small field. The SFD was considered with the most accurate dosimeter for small collimator dosimetry in this study.