Journal of Radiation Industry (방사선산업학회지)

Korean Society of Radiation Industry (한국방사선산업학회)
권호 표지

Dose Volume Histogram Analysis for Comparison of Usability of Linear Accelerator Flattening Filter

  • Ji, Yun-Sang (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Dong, Kyung-Rae (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University) ;
  • Ryu, Jae-Kwang (Depatment of Nuclear Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Choi, Ji-Won (Department of Radiological Science, Jeonju University) ;
  • Kim, Mi-Hyun (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health University)
  • Received : 2018.09.14
  • Accepted : 2018.11.10
  • Published : 2018.12.31

⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The wedge filter has two movements, fixed and dynamic. In this study, the depth dose distribution was analyzed to determine the stability of the dose distribution and dose volume histograms obtained by evaluating the usability of the critical normal tissue dose around the tumor dose. The depth dose was analyzed from the dose distribution from a Linac (6 MV and 10 MV irradiation field of energy $20{\times}20cm^2$, wedge filter with a SSD of 100 cm and $15^{\circ}$, $30^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$ Y1-in (Left -7 cm), Y2-out(Right +7 cm). To analyze the fluctuations of the depth dose, a fixed wedge and dynamic wedge toe portion was examined according to the energy and angle because the size of the fluctuations was included in the error bound and did not show significant differences. The neck, breast, and pelvic dosimetry in tumor tissue are measured more commonly with a dynamic wedge than a fixed wedge presumably due to the error range. On the other hand, dosimetry of the surrounding normal tissue is more common using a fixed wedge than with a dynamic wedge.

Keywords

References

  1. Cheng CW and Chin LM. 1987. A computer-aided treatment planning technique for universal wedges. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 13(12):1927-1935. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(87)90362-2
  2. Cross P, Joseph DJ, Cant J, Cooper SG and Denham JW. 1992. Tangential breast irradiation: simple improvements. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 23(2):433-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(92)90765-A
  3. Cumberlin RL, Dritschilo A and Mossman KL. 1989. Carcinogenic effects of scattered dose associated with radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 17(3):623-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(89)90115-6
  4. Khan FM, Gerbi BJ and Deibel FC. 1986. Dosimetry of asymmetric x-ray collimators. Med. Phys. 13(6):936-941. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.595822
  5. Kijewski PK, Chin LM and Bjarngard BE. 1978. Wedge-shaped dose distributions by computer-controlled collimator motion. Med. Phys. 5(5):426-429. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.594440
  6. Klein EE, Low DA, Meigooni AS and Purdy JA. 1995. Dosimetry and clinical implementation of dynamic wedge. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 31(3):583-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(94)00369-V
  7. Li Z and Klein EE. 1997. Suface and peripheral doses of dynamic and physical wedges. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 37(4):921-925. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(96)00610-4
  8. Marks LB, Yorke ED, Jackson A, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Eisbruch A, Bentzen SM, Nam J and Deasy JO. 2010. Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 76(3):10-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.07.1754
  9. Oh YT, Keum KC, Chu SS and Kim GE. 1996. Dosimetric characteristics of dynamic wedge technique. J. Korean Soc. Ther. Radial. Oncol. 14(4):1996:323-332.
  10. Petti PL and Siddon RL. 1985. Effective wedge angles with a universal wedge. Phys. Med. Biol. 30(9):985-991. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/30/9/010
  11. Prabhakar R, Julka PK, Malik M, Ganesh T, Joshi RC, Sridhar PS, Rath GK, Pant GS and Thulkar S. 2007. Comparison of contralateral breast dose for various tangential field techniques in clinical radiotherapy. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6(2):135-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/153303460700600210