• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.7-16
• /
• 2016

Purpose : This study aimed to compare and evaluate between the efficiency of two respective devices, 3D-bolus and step-bolus when the devices were used for the treatment of patients whose chest walls were required to undergo the electron beam therapy after the surgical procedure of modified radical mastectomy, MRM. Materials and Methods : The treatment plan of reverse hockey stick method, using the photon beam and electron beam, had been set for six breast cancer patients and these 6 breast cancer patients were selected to be the subjects for this study. The prescribed dose of electron beam for anterior chest wall was set to be 180 cGy per treatment and both the 3D-bolus, produced using 3D printer(CubeX, 3D systems, USA) and the self-made conventional step-bolus were used respectively. The surface dose under 3D-bolus and step-bolus was measured at 5 measurement spots of iso-center, lateral, medial, superior and inferior point, using GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film (International specialty products, USA) and the measured value of dose at 5 spots was compared and analyzed. Also the respective treatment plan was devised, considering the adoption of 3D-bolus and stepbolus and the separate treatment results were compared to each other. Results : The average surface dose was 179.17 cGy when the device of 3D-bolus was adopted and 172.02 cGy when step-bolus was adopted. The average error rate against the prescribed dose of 180 cGy was -(minus) 0.47% when the device of 3D-bolus was adopted and it was -(minus) 4.43% when step-bolus was adopted. It was turned out that the maximum error rate at the point of iso-center was 2.69%, in case of 3D-bolus adoption and it was 5,54% in case of step-bolus adoption. The maximum discrepancy in terms of treatment accuracy was revealed to be about 6% when step-bolus was adopted and to be about 3% when 3D-bolus was adopted. The difference in average target dose on chest wall between 3D-bolus treatment plan and step-bolus treatment plan was shown to be insignificant as the difference was only 0.3%. However, to mention the average prescribed dose for the part of lung and heart, that of 3D-bolus was decreased by 11% for lung and by 8% for heart, compared to that of step-bolus. Conclusion : It was confirmed through this research that the dose uniformity could be improved better through the device of 3D-bolus than through the device of step-bolus, as the device of 3D-bolus, produced in consideration of the contact condition of skin surface of chest wall, could be attached to patients' skin more nicely and the thickness of chest wall can be guaranteed more accurately by the device of 3D-bolus. It is considered that 3D-bolus device can be highly appreciated clinically because 3D-bolus reduces the dose on the adjacent organs and make the normal tissues protected, while that gives no reduction of dose on chest wall.