Conventional, IMRT, VMAT을 이용한 CSI 치료시, Setup 오차에 따른 각 Junction부의 선량변화측정을 통한 치료계획 비교

Comparison treatment planning with the measured change the dose of each Junction section according to the error of setup CSI Treatment with Conventional, IMRT, VMAT

  • 이호진 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 전창우 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 안범석 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 유숙현 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 박소연 (서울대학교병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Lee, Ho Jin (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul University hospital) ;
  • Jeon, Chang Woo (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul University hospital) ;
  • Ahn, Bum Suk (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul University hospital) ;
  • Yu, Sook Hyeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul University hospital) ;
  • Park, So Yeon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul University hospital)
  • 투고 : 2014.09.30
  • 심사 : 2014.12.02
  • 발행 : 2014.12.30

초록

목 적 : Conventional, IMRT, VMAT을 이용한 CSI치료 시, Setup 오차에 따른 각 Junction부의 선량변화측정을 통해 치료계획을 비교한다. 대상 및 방법 : 본원에서 CSI 치료환자를 대상으로 이클립스 10.0(Eclipse10.0, Varian, USA)를 이용하여 Conventional, IMRT, VMAT 치료계획을 세웠다. 또한 필름측정을 위하여 각 치료계획마다 IMRT QA phantom을 적용한 Verification plan을 생성하였다. 이때, 각 치료기법의 Setup 오차는 0, 머리방향으로 2, 4, 6mm, 다리방향으로 2, 4, 6mm로 적용하였다.(이하, '+'는 머리 방향, '-'는 다리방향을 의미한다.) IMRT QA Phantom과 EBT2 film을 이용하여, 각 치료기법별로 Junction부의 Setup 오차를 0, +2, +4, +6, -2, -4, -6mm로 이동하여 조사하였다. Film을 Scan하여 감마지수(Gamma index,${\gamma}$)를 도출하여, 측정된 Film과 치료계획상의 선량분포와의 일치성을 확인한 후, Setup 오차에 따른 Conventional, IMRT, VMAT 치료계획별 선량분포도를 비교하였고, Homogeneity Index(HI)를 계산하여 표적 내 선량분포의 균일성을 분석하였다. 결 과 : Film으로 측정하여 얻은 감마지수는 90.49%로 Film scan값과 치료계획상의 선량분포와의 일치성을 확인하였다. 또한, 거리에 따른 선량분포도에 따르면, Setup 오차를 머리 방향으로 2, 4, 6mm설정하면 Conventional의 $^*Diff$(%)는 3.1, 4.5, 8.1, IMRT는 1.1, 3.5, 6.3, VMAT은 1.6, 2.5, 5.7으로 나타났다. 같은 방법으로 Setup 오차를 다리방향으로 2, 4, 6mm로 설정을 하면 Conventional의 $^*Diff$(%)는 -1.6, -2.8, -4.4, IMRT는 -0.9, -1.6, -2.9, VMAT은 -0.5, -2.2, -2.5으로 나타났다. Homogeneity Index(HI)는 Conventional 1.216, IMRT 1.095, VMAT 1.069로 값을 얻었다. 결 론 : Dose homogeneity와 Junction 부위에 대한 완만한 Dose gradient의 장점을 가진 IMRT와 VMAT을 이용한 CSI치료는 Conventional 기법보다 Setup 오차에 따른 Junction 부위의 선량의 변화가 적었고, 균일성 또한 좋게 나타났다. 이러한 적은 선량의 변화는 CSI치료 시 발생하는 Setup 오차에도 환자에게 위험성이 적음을 의미한다.

Purpose : Conventional, IMRT, at CSI treatment with VMAT, this study compare the treatment plan with dose changes measured at Junction field according to the error of Setup. Materials and Methods : This study established Conventional, the IMRT, VMAT treatment planning for CSI therapy using the Eclipse 10.0 (Eclipse10.0, Varian, USA) and chose person in Seoul National University Hospital. Verification plan was also created to apply IMRT QA phantom for each treatment plan to the film measurements. At this time, the error of Setup was applied to the 2, 4, 6mm respectively with the head and foot direction. ("+" direction of the head, "-" means that the foot direction.) Using IMRT QA Phantom and EBT2 film, was investigated by placing the error of Setup for each Junction. We check the consistency of the measured Film and plan dose distribution by gamma index (Gamma index, ${\gamma}$). In addition, we compared the error of Setup by the dose distribution, and analyzing the uniformity of the dose distribution within the target by calculating the Homogeneity Index (HI). Results : It was figured out that 90.49%-gamma index we obtained with film is agreement with film scan score and dose distribution of treatment plan. Also, depend on the dose distribution on distance, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the head direction, it showed that 3.1, 4.5, 8.1 at $^*Diff$(%) of Conventional, 1.1, 3.5, 6.3 at IMRT, and 1.6, 2.5, 5.7 at VMAT. In the same way, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the foot direction, it showed that -1.6, -2.8, -4.4 at $^*Diff$(%) of Conventional, -0.9, -1.6, -2.9 at IMRT, and -0.5, -2.2, -2.5 at VMAT. Homogeneity Index(HI)s are 1.216 at Conventional, 1.095 at IMRT and 1.069 at VMAT. Discussion and Conclusion : The dose-change depend on the error of Setup at the CSI RT(radiation therapy) using IMRT and VMAT which have advantages, Dose homogeneity and the gradual dose gradients on the Junction part is lower than that of Conventional CSI RT. This a little change of dose means that there is less danger on patients despite of the error of Setup generated at the CSI RT.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 이충일 김회남 오택열 등 : 전산화 단층 촬영 장치를 이용 한 뇌척수 조사의 치료 계획. The journal of the korean radiotherapeutic technology, v.11 no.1, 1999년 : 53-59
  2. Matthew T. Studenski, Ph.D.,* Xinglei Shen, M.D. et al : Intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetricmodulated arc therapy for adult craniospinal irradiation-A comparison with traditional techniques. Medical Dosimetry 38 (2013) : 48-54 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2012.05.006
  3. Tejinder Kataria, Kuldeep Sharma, Vikraman Subramani, K. P. Karrthick, and Shyam S. Bisht : Homogeneity Index: An objective tool for assessment of conformal radiation treatments. J Med Phys. 2012 Oct-Dec; 37(4): 207-213 https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.103606
  4. Myonggeun Yoon, Sung Yong Park, Dongho Shin, et al. : A new homogeneity index based on statistical analysis of the dose-volume histogram. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007 Mar 20 : 9-17
  5. 우헌, 박장필, 민제순, 이제희, 유숙현 : 용적세기조절회 전치료 치료계획 확인에 사용되는 MapPHAN의 유용성 평가. 대한방사선치료학회지 제 5권 제호 2013 : 115-121
  6. Daniel A. Low, William B. Harms, Sasa Mutic, and James A. Purdy : A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Medical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 5, May 1998 : 656-661 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248
  7. William A. Parker, Carolyn R. Freeman : A simple technique for craniospinal radiotherapy in the supine position. Radiotherapy and Oncology 78 (2006) : 217?222 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2005.11.009
  8. ROLAND B. HAWKINS, M.D., PH.D. : A simple method of radiation of radiation treatment of craniospinal fields with patient supine. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., Vol. 49, No. 1, 2001 : 261-264 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(00)01367-5
  9. Jianzhou Chen, Chuangzhen Chen, Todd F. Atwood, et al. : Volumetric modulated arc therapy planning method for supine craniospinal irradiation. Journal of Radiation Oncology September 2012, Volume 1, Issue 3 : 291-297 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-012-0028-9