• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.157-163
• /
• 2018

Plans converted using dose-volume-histogram-based plan conversion (DPC) were evaluated by comparing them to the original plans. Changes in the dose volumetric (DV) parameters of five volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for head and neck (HN) cancer and five VMAT plans for prostate cancer were analyzed. For the HN plans, the homogeneity indices (HIs) of the three planning target volumes (PTV) increased by 0.03, 0.02, and 0.03, respectively, after DPC. The maximum doses to the PTVs increased by 1.20, 1.87, and 0.92 Gy, respectively, after DPC. The maximum doses to the optic chiasm, optic nerves, spinal cord, brain stem, lenses, and parotid glands increased after DPC by approximately 4.39, 3.62, 7.55, 7.96, 1.77, and 6.40 Gy, respectively. For the prostate plans after DPC, the HIs for the primary and boost PTVs increased by 0.05 and 0.03, respectively, and the maximum doses to each PTV increased by 1.84 and 0.19 Gy, respectively. After DPC, the mean doses to the rectum and femoral heads increased by approximately 6.19 and 2.79 Gy, respectively, and those to the bladder decreased by 0.20 Gy when summing the primary and boost plans. Because clinically unacceptable changes were sometimes observed after DPC, plans converted by DPC should be carefully reviewed before actual patient treatment.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.331-339
• /
• 2014

To test feasibility of proton arc therapy (PAT) in the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor and compare its dosimetric properties with advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional 3D conformal proton beam therapy (PBT). The treatment plans for para-aortic lymph node tumor were planned for 9 patients treated at our institution using IMRT, PBT, and PAT. Feasibility test and dosimetric evaluation were based on comparisons of dose volume histograms (DVHs) which reveal mean dose, $D_{30%}$, $D_{60%}$, $D_{90%}$, $V_{30%}$, $V_{60%}$, $V_{90%}$, organ equivalent doses (OEDs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI). The average doses delivered by PAT to the liver, kidney, small bowel, duodenum, stomach were 7.6%, 3%, 17.3%, 26.7%, and 14.4%, of the prescription dose (PD), respectively, which is higher than the doses delivered by IMRT (0.4%, 7.2%, 14.2%, 15.9%, and 12.8%, respectively) and PBT (4.9%, 0.5%, 14.12%, 16.1% 9.9%, respectively). The average homogeneity index and conformity index of tumor using PAT were 12.1 and 1.21, respectively which were much better than IMRT (21.5 and 1.47, respectively) and comparable to PBT (13.1 and 1.23, respectively). The result shows that both NTCP and OED of PAT are generally lower than IMRT and PBT. This study demonstrates that PAT is better in target conformity and homogeneity than IMRT and PBT but worse than IMRT and PBT for most of dosimetric factor which indicate that PAT is not recommended for the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.30 no.1_2
• /
• pp.129-138
• /
• 2018

Purpose : An aim of this study was to compare the effect of multi leaf collimator(MLC) types for high dimension radiotherapy in treatment sites used clinically. Material and Method : 70 patients with lung cancer, spine cancer, prostate cancer, whole pelvis, head and neck, breast cancer were included in this study. High definition(HD) MLC of TrueBeam STx (Varian Medical system, Palo Alto, CA) and millenium(M) MLC of VitalBeam (Varian Medical system, Palo Alto, CA) were used. Radiotherapy plans were performed for each patient under same treatment goals with Eclipse (Version 13.7, Varian Palo Alto USA, CA). To compare the indicators of the radiotherapy plans, planning target volume(PTV) coverage, conformity index(CI), homogeneity index(HI), and clinical indicators for each treatment sites in normal tissues were evaluated. To evaluate low dose distribution, $V_{30%}$ values were compared according to MLC types. Additionally, length and volume of targets for each treatment sites were investigated. Result : In stereotatictic body radiotherapy(SBRT) plan for lung, the average value of PTV coverage was reduced by 0.52 % with HD MLC. With SBRT plan using HD MLC for spine, the average value of PTV coverage decreased by 0.63 % and maximum dose decreased by 1.13 %. In the test of CI and HI, the values in SBRT plan with HD MLC for spine were 1.144, 1.079 and the values using M MLC were 1.160, 1.092 in SBRT plan for lung, The dose evaluation of critical organ was reduced by 1.48 % in the ipsilateral lung mean dose with HD MLC. In prostate cancer volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) with HD MLC, the mean dose and the $V_{30}$ of bladder and the mean dose and the $V_{25}$ of rectum were reduced by 0.53 %, 1.42 %, 0.97 %, and 0.69 %, respectively (p<0.05). The average value of heart mean dose was reduced by 0.83 % in breast cancer VMAT with M MLC. Other assessment indices for treatment sites showed no significant difference between treatment plans with two types of MLC. Conclusion : Using HD MLC had a positive impact on the PTV coverage and normal tissue sparing in usually short or small targets such as lung and spine SBRT and prostate VMAT. But, there was no significant difference in targets with long and large such as lung, head and neck, and whole pelvis for VMAT.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.7-13
• /
• 2019

Purpose: To compare the dosimetrical and radiobiological parameters among various volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques using restricted and continuous arc beams for left-sided breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Ten patients with left-sided breast cancer without regional nodes were retrospectively selected and prescribed the dose of 42.6 Gy in 16 fractions on the planning target volume (PTV). For each patient, three plans were generated using the $Eclipse^{TM}$ system (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA) with one partial arc 1pVMAT, two partial arcs 2pVMAT, and two tangential arcs 2tVMAT. All plans were calculated through anisotropic analytic algorithm and photon optimizer with 6 MV photon beam of $VitalBEAM^{TM}$. The same dose objectives for each plan were used to achieve a fair comparison during optimization. Results: For PTV, dosimetrical parameters such as Homogeneity index, conformity index, and conformal number were superior in 2pVMAT than those in both techniques. $V_{95%}$, which indicates PTV coverage, was 91.86%, 96.60%, and 96.65% for 1pVMAT, 2pVMAT, and 2tVMAT, respectively. In most organs at risk (OARs), 2pVMAT significantly reduced the delivered doses compared with the other techniques, excluding the doses to contralateral lung. For the analysis of radiobiological parameters, a significant difference in normal tissue complication probability was observed in ipsilateral lung while no difference was observed in the other OARs. Conclusions: Our study showed that 2pVMAT had better plan quality and normal tissue sparing than 1pVMAT and 2tVMAT but not for all parameters. Therefore, 2pVMAT could be considered the priority choice for the treatment planning for left breast cancer.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The aims of this study were to compare the superficial dose with Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeter(OSLD) measurement and Treatment Planning System(TPS) calculation for 6MV-Flattening Filter Free(FFF) energy using HalcyonTM and TrueBeamTM. Materials and methods: Phantom study was performed using the CT images of human phantom. In the treatment planning system, the Planning Target Volume(PTV) was contoured which is similar to Glottic cancer. Furthermore, Point(M), Point(R), and Point(L) were contoured at the iso-center of head and neck region and 5mm bolus was applied to the body contour. Each treatment plans using 6MV-FFF energy from HalcyonTM and TrueBeamTM with static Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy(IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(VMAT) were established with eclipse. To reproduce the same position as the TPS, OSLDs were placed at the iso-center point and 5mm bolus was applied to compare the error rate after the dose delivery. Result: The results of the study using human phantom are as follows. In case of HalcyonTM, the mean absolute error rates of the point dose using the treatment planning system and the dose measured by OSLD were 1.7%±1.2% for VMAT and 4.0±2.8% for IMRT. Also TrueBeamTM was identified as 2.4±0.4% and 8.6±1.8% respectively for VMAT and IMRT. Conclusion: Through the results of this study, TrueBeamTM confirmed that the average error rate was 2.4 times higher for VMAT and 3.6 times higher for IMRT than HalcyonTM. Therefore, based on the results of this study, If we need a more accurate dose assessment for the superficial dose, It is expected that using HalcyonTM would be better than TrueBeamTM.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.295-302
• /
• 2013

We estimated secondary scattered and leakage doses for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with liver cancer. Five liver patients were planned by IMRT, VMAT and TOMO. Secondary scatter (and leakage) dose and organ equivalent doses (OEDs) are measured and estimated at various points 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center by using radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeter (RPLGD). The secondary dose per Gy from IMRT, VMAT and TOMO for liver cancer, measured 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center, are 0.01~3.13, 0.03~2.34 and 0.04~1.29 cGy, respectively. The mean values of relative OED of secondary dose of VMAT and TOMO for five patients, which is normalized by IMRT, measured as 75.24% and 50.92% for thyroid, 75.14% and 40.61% for bowel, 72.30% and 47.77% for rectum, 76.21% and 49.93% for prostate. The secondary dose and OED from TOMO is relatively low to those from IMRT and VMAT. OED based estimation suggests that the secondary cancer risk from TOMO is less than or comparable to the risks from conventional IMRT and VMAT.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.9 no.7
• /
• pp.449-457
• /
• 2015

In this study, to evaluate the usefulness of the treatment plan of tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in the radiotherapy for prostate cancer, the absorbed dose, dose volume histogram (DVH), treatment efficiency, and the results of dose verification accuracy using MapCHECK2 were compared and analyzed. Of the prostate cancer patients who underwent tomotherapy treatment in the Radiologic Oncology of H University Hospital between July 2014 and December 2014, 12 patients were randomly selected. As a result of analyzing the absorbed dose and DVH, both radiologic treatment plans showed slight differences in the treatment of the cancer tissues and the bladder, but the difference was in the error range of -5% to +3%, and did not exceed the side effect guideline or the tolerance dose limit. VMAT showed higher treatment efficiency than tomotherapy with a 2.5 times shorter treatment time and a 10.3 times less monitor unit (MU). Both showed 95% or higher dose accuracy satisfying the standard. VMAT showed 2.3% higher efficiency than tomotherapy. In both tomotherapy and VMAT, appropriate doses were absorbed for cancer tissues, and did not exceed the tolerance dose for normal tissues showing no significant difference in dose distribution. However, considering the shorter treatment time, lower total MU, and better treatment efficiency and dose verification accuracy, VMAT may be more useful than tomotherapy in cancer treatments.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.15-25
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study is to evaluate plan quality and dose accuracy for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) on the TG-119 and is to investigate the effects on variation of the selectable optimization parameters of VMAT. VMAT treatment planning was implemented on a Varian iX linear accelerator with ARIA record and verify system (Varian Mecical System Palo Alto, CA) and Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system (Nucletron BV, Veenendaal, Netherlands). Plan quality and dosimetric accuracy were evaluated by effect of varying a number of arc, gantry spacing and delivery time for the test geometries provided in TG-119. Plan quality for the target and OAR was evaluated by the mean value and the standard deviation of the Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs). The ionization chamber and $Delta^{4PT}$ bi-planar diode array were used for the dose evaluation. For treatment planning evaluation, all structure sets closed to the goals in the case of single arc, except for the C-shape (hard), and all structure sets achieved the goals in the case of dual arc, except for C-shape (hard). For the variation of a number of arc, the simple structure such as a prostate did not have the difference between single arc and dual arc, whereas the complex structure such as a head and neck showed a superior result in the case of dual arc. The dose distribution with gantry spacing of $4^{\circ}$ was shown better plan quality than the gantry spacing of $6^{\circ}$, but was similar results compared with gantry spacing of $2^{\circ}$. For the verification of dose accuracy with single arc and dual arc, the mean value of a relative error between measured and calculated value were within 3% and 4% for point dose and confidence limit values, respectively. For the verification on dose accuracy with the gantry intervals of $2^{\circ}$, $4^{\circ}$ and $6^{\circ}$, the mean values of relative error were within 3% and 5% for point dose and confidence limit values, respectively. In the verification of dose distribution with $Delta^{4PT}$ bi-planar diode array, gamma passing rate was $98.72{\pm}1.52%$ and $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ for single arc and dual arc, respectively. The confidence limit values were within 4%. The smaller the gantry spacing, the more accuracy results were shown. In this study, we performed the VMAT QA based on TG-119 procedure, and demonstrated that all structure sets were satisfied with acceptance criteria. And also, the results for the selective optimization variables informed the importance of selection for the suitable variables according to the clinical cases.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.43-49
• /
• 2019

Purpose: This study examined changes in the position of the heat and lungs depending on the patient's breathing method during left breast cancer radiotherapy and used treatment plans to compare the resulting radiation dose. Materials and methods: The participants consisted of 10 patients with left breast cancer. A CT simulator(SIMENS SOMATOM AS, Germany) was used to obtain images when using three different breathing methods: free breathing(FB), deep inspiration breath hold(DIBH with Abches, DIBH), inspiration breath hold(IBH with CPAP, CPAP). A Ray Station(5.0.2.35, Sweden) was used for treatment planning, the treatment method was volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with one partial arc of the same angle, and the prescribed dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was a total dose of 50Gy(2Gy/day). In treatment plan analysis, the 95% dose (D95) to the PTV, the conformity index(CI), and the homogeneity index (HI) were compared. The lungs, heart, and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were selected as the organs at risk(OARs). Results: The mean volume of the ipsilateral lung for FB, DIBH, and CPAP was 1245.58±301.31㎤, 1790.09±362.43 ㎤, 1775.44±476.71 ㎤. The mean D95 for the PTV was 46.67±1.89Gy, 46.85±1.72Gy, 46.97±23.4Gy, and the mean CI and HI were 0.95±0.02, 0.96±0.02, 0.95±0.02 and 0.91±0.01, 0.90±0.01, 0.92±0.02. The V20 of Whole Lung was 10.74±4.50%, 8.29±3.14%, 9.12±3.29% and The V20 of the ipsilateral lung was 20.45±8.65%, 17.18±7.04%, 18.85±7.85%, the Dmean of the heart was 7.82±1.27Gy, 6.10±1.27Gy, 5.67±1.56Gy, and the Dmax of the LAD was 20.41±7.56Gy, 14.88±3.57Gy, 14.96±2.81Gy. The distance from the thoracic wall to the LAD was measured to be 11.33±4.70mm, 22.40±6.01mm, 20.14±6.23mm. Conclusion: During left breast cancer radiotherapy, the lung volume was 46.24% larger for DIBH than for FB, and 43.11% larger for CPAP than FB. The larger lung volume increases the distance between the thoracic wall and the heart. In this way, the LAD, which is one of the nearby OARs, can be more effectively protected while still satisfying the treatment plan. The lung volume was largest for DIBH, and the distance between the LAD and thoracic wall was also the greatest. However, when performing treatment with DIBH, the intra-fraction error cannot be ignored. Moreover, communication between the patient and the radiotherapist is also an important factor in DIBH treatment. When communication is problematic, or if the patient has difficulty holding their breath, we believe that CPAP could be used as an alternative to DIBH. In order to verify the clinical efficacy of CPAP, it will be necessary to perform long-term follow-up of a greater number of patients.

• 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.