Radiation Oncology Journal

The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology (대한방사선종양학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quality Assurance of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: Site-Specific Results of Eulji University Hospital

질환별 세기조절방사선치료의 정도관리: 을지대학병원 임상결과

  • Kim, Sung-Jin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Mi-Jo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University College of Medicine) ;
  • Youn, Seon-Min (Department of Radiation Oncology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University College of Medicine)
  • 김성진 (을지대학교 의과대학 을지대학교병원 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 이미조 (을지대학교 의과대학 을지대학교병원 방사선종양학교실) ;
  • 윤선민 (을지대학교 의과대학 을지대학교병원 방사선종양학교실)
  • Received : 2010.07.02
  • Accepted : 2011.04.14
  • Published : 2011.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze our quality assurance (QA) data for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) according to treatment site and to possibly improve QA for IMRT in Hospital. Materials and Methods: We performed QA on 50 patients (head and neck, 28 patients; Breast, 14 patients; Pelvis, 8 patients) for IMRT. The calculated dose from RTP was compared with the measured value film, gamma index, and ionization chamber for dose measurement in each case. Results: The point dose measurement results in 45 of 50 patients showed good agreement with the calculation dose (${\pm}3%$). The largest error measured thus far has been 3.60%, with a mean of only -0.17% (SD, 2.25%). Each treatment site showed an error rate of -0.13% (SD, 1.93%) for head and neck cases, -0.26% (SD, 2.79%) for breast cases, and 0.24% (SD, 2.44%) for pelvis cases. The gamma index verified with the error rate of head and neck cases (6%), breast (10%), and pelvis (6%), which corresponded to a tolerance of 3 mm (3% for the head and neck, 2%, for the breast 1% for the pelvis, and 0% in the region where the isodose curve was greater than 90%. Conclusion: We recognize the cause of errors for each treatment site of IMRT QA and so we maximize our efforts to reduce error and increase accuracy.

목 적: 본원에서 시행된 세기조절방사선치료(IMRT) 환자의 질환별 정도관리(QA) 결과를 통해 오차의 원인과 정도를 확인하고 오차를 줄일 수 있는 개선점을 찾아 임상에 적용하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: IMRT를 시행한 환자 50명(두경부, 28명; 유방, 14명; 골반부, 8명)에 대한 질환별 QA 결과를 분석하였다. 각각의 경우에 대해 film을 이용하여 gamma index를 구하였고, 이온함을 이용한 점 선량을 측정하여 치료계획 시스템의 선량과 비교 분석하였다. 결 과: 점 선량 측정에서는 50명의 환자 중 45명의 환자는 치료 계획된 선량과 측정된 선량의 오차가 ${\pm}3%$ 이내로 오차를 보였다. 최대 오차는 3.6%, 전체 평균 오차 0.17% (SD=2.25%)의 오차율을 보였다. 질환별로 살펴보면 두경부 -0.13% (SD=1.93%), 유방 -0.26% (SD=2.79%), 골반부의 경우 0.24% (SD=2.44%)의 오차율을 보였다. 상대선량 측정에서는 측정된 필름의 Gamma index distance to agreement (DTA) - dose difference (DD) 3 mm-3%의 기준에서 두경부 6%, 유방 10%, 골반부 6%의 오차를 보였다. 등선량곡선 90% 이상의 영역에서는 두경부 2%, 유방 1%, 글반부 0%의 오차를 보였다. 결 론: 치료 위치에 따른 오차의 원인과 개선점을 파악하여 보다 양질의 IMRT를 구축하기 위한 기반을 다질 필요가 있을 것으로 생각한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Xing L, Chen GT. Iterative methods for inverse treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:2107-2123 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/41/10/018
  2. Bortfeld T, Boyer AL, Schlegel W, Kahler DL, Waldron TJ. Realization and verification of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with modulated fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;30:899-908 https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)90366-2
  3. Chui CS, LoSasso T, Spirou S. Dose calculation for photon beams with intensity modulation generated by dynamic jaw or multileaf collimations. Med Phys 1994;21:1237-1244 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597206
  4. Bortfeld T. IMRT: a review and preview. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:R363-R379 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R21
  5. Shin KH, Park SY, Park DH, et al. Patient specific quality assurance of IMRT: quantitative approach using film dosimetry and optimization. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2005;23:176-185
  6. Yoon SM, Yi BY, Choi EK, Kim JH, Ahn SD, Lee SW. Quality assurance of patients for intensity modulated radiation therapy. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2002;20:81-90
  7. Cho BC, Park SW, Oh DH, Bae H. Quality assurance for intensity modulated radiation therapy. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2001;19:275-286
  8. Vieira SC, Kaatee RS, Dirkx ML, Heijmen BJ. Two-dimensional measurement of photon beam attenuation by the treatment couch and immobilization devices using an electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 2003;30:2981-2987 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1620491
  9. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 1998;25:656-661 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  10. Low DA, Mutic S, Dempsey JF, et al. Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system. Radiother Oncol 1998;49:305-316 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(98)00125-X
  11. Low DA, Dempsey JF. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys 2003;30:2455-2464 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1598711
  12. Depuydt T, Van Esch A, Huyskens DP. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol 2002;62:309-319 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8140(01)00497-2
  13. Park DH, Shin D, Park SY, et al. Optimized matching of film dosimetry with calculated doses for IMRT quality assurance. Phys Med 2007;23:49-57 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2007.03.001
  14. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys 2009;36:5359-5373 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3238104
  15. Kaurin DG, Maryanski MJ, Duggan DM, Morton KC, Coffey CW. Use of MRI based polymer gel dosimetry, pelvic phantom, and cirtyal simulation to verify set-up and calculated three-dimensional dose distribution for a prostate treatment. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Radiation Therapy Gel Dosimetry; Lexington, KY, USA; 1999. 184-186
  16. Mayer R, Williams A, Frankel T, et al. Two-dimensional film dosimetry application in heterogeneous materials exposed to megavoltage photon beams. Med Phys 1997;24:455-460 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598126
  17. Que W, Kung J, Dai J. 'Tongue-and-groove' effect in intensity modulated radiotherapy with static multileaf collimator fields. Phys Med Biol 2004;49:399-405 https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/3/004

Cited by

  1. Quantitative analysis of tomotherapy, linear-accelerator-based 3D conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and 4D conformal radiation therapy vol.60, pp.7, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.60.1167