The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy (대한방사선치료학회지)

Korean Society for Radiation Therapy (대한방사선치료학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of surface dose comparison by treatment equipment

치료 장비 별 표면 선량 비교평가

  • Choi Eun Ha (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Yoon Bo Reum (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Park Byoung Suk (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • An Ye Chan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Park Myoung Hwan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Park Yong Chul (Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center)
  • 최은하 (삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 윤보름 (삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 박병석 (삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 안예찬 (삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 박명환 (삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 박용철 (삼성서울병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study measures and compares the surface dose values in the virtual target volume using Tomotherapy, Halcyon, and TrueBeam equipment using 6MV-Flattening Filter-Free(FFF) energy. Materials and Methods: CT scan was performed under three conditions of without bolus, 0.5 cm bolus, and 1 cm bolus using an IMRT phantom (IBA, Germany). The Planning Target Volume (PTV) was set at the virtual target depth, and the treatment plan was established at 200 cGy at a time. For surface dosimetry, the Gafchromic EBT3 film was placed in the same section as the treatment planning system and repeated measurements were performed 10 times and then analyzed. Result: As a result of measuring the surface dose for each equipment, without, 0.5 cm, 1 cm bolus is in this order, and the result of Tomotherapy is 115.2±2.0 cGy, 194.4±3.3 cGy, 200.7±2.9 cGy, The result in Halcyon was 104.7±3.0 cGy, 180.1±10.8 cGy, 187.0±10.1 cGy, and the result in TrueBeam was 92.4±3.2 cGy, 148.6±5.7 cGy, 155.8±6.1 cGy, In all three conditions, the same as the treatment planning system, Tomotherapy, Halcyon, TreuBeam was measured highly in that order. Conclusion: Higher surface doses were measured in Tomotherapy and Halcyon compared to TrueBeam equipment. If the characteristics of each equipment are considered according to the treatment site and treatment purpose, it is expected that the treatment efficiency of the patient will increase as well as the treatment satisfaction of the patient.

목 적: 본 연구는 6MV-FFF(Flattening Filter Free) 에너지를 사용하는 Tomotherapy, Halcyon, True-Beam 장비를 이용하여 가상의 표적 용적에 대한 표면 선량 값을 측정, 비교평가하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: IMRT 팬텀(IBA, Germany)을 이용하였으며 표면 선량 측정의 정확도를 높이기 위해 without bolus, 0.5 cm bolus, 1 cm bolus 총 세 가지 조건으로 전산화 단층촬영을 시행하였다. 가상의 표적 깊이에 치료 계획 용적(Planning Target Volume, PTV)을 설정하고 1회, 200 cGy로 치료 계획을 각각 수립하였다. 표면 선량 측정은 Gafchromic EBT3 필름을 전산화 치료 계획과 동일한 구간에 위치시켜 10회 반복 측정한 뒤 분석하였다. 결 과: 각 장비 별 실험 결과 without bolus, 0.5 cm bolus, 1 cm bolus 순서로 표면 선량 측정값의 평균은 Tomotherapy에서 115.2±2.0 cGy, 194.4±3.3 cGy, 200.7±2.9 cGy로 확인되었고, Halcyon에서 104.7±3.0 cGy, 180.1±10.8 cGy, 187.0±10.1 cGy로 확인되었으며, TrueBeam에서 92.4±3.2 cGy, 148.6±5.7 cGy, 155.8±6.1 cGy로 확인되었다. 세 가지 조건에서 모두 치료 계획 시스템과 동일하게 Tomotherapy, Halcyon, TrueBeam 순으로 높게 측정되었다. 결 론: Tomotherapy와 Halcyon에서 TrueBeam 장비에 비해 표면 선량이 높게 측정되었다. 치료 부위와 치료 목적에 맞춰 장비 별 특성이 고려된다면 치료 효율성의 증가뿐 아니라 환자의 치료 만족도도 높아질 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Perz CA, Brady LW : "Principle and Practice of Radiation Oncology," 2nd ed. Philadelphia, JB Lippincott Co, 1992; pp.51-55
  2. Sigamani A, Nambiraj A, Yadav G et al : Surface dose measurements and comparison of unflattened and flattened photon beams. J Med Phys. 2016;Vol 41(2):85-91 https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-6203.181648
  3. Erica B. Collen and Monique N. Mayer : Acute effects of radiation treatment: Skin reactions. Can Vet J. 2006;Vol 47(9):931-935
  4. Sharma M, Chow JCL : Skin dose enhancement from the application of skin-care creams using FF and FFF photon beams in radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo phantom evaluation. AIMS Bioengineering. 2020; Vol 7 Issue2: 82-90 https://doi.org/10.3934/bioeng.2020008
  5. Fischbach M, Halg RA, Hartmann M, Besserer J, Gruber G, Schneider U : Measurement of skin and target dose in post-mastectomy radiotherapy using 4 and 6 MV photon beams. Radiation Oncology (London, England). 2013; Vol 8:270
  6. Wang L , Cmelak AJ, Ding GX : A simple technique to improve calculated skin dose accuracy in a commercial treatment planning system, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.2018; Vol 19(2):191-197
  7. Rijken J, Kairn T, Crowe S, Munoz L, Trapp J : A simple method to account for skin dose enhancement during treatment planning of VMAT treatments of patients in contact with immobilization equipment. Journal of applied clinical medical physics.2018;Vol 19(4):239-245
  8. Mohammed M, Chakir E, Boukhal H, Mroan S, Bardouni TEl : Evaluation of the dosimetric characteristics of 6 MV flattened and unflattened photon beam. Journal of King Saud University - Science. 2017;Vol 29 Issue 3:Pages 371-379 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2016.09.008
  9. Wang Y, Khan MK, Ting JY, Easterling SB : Surface Dose Investigation of the Flattening FilterFree Photon Beams. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2012;Vol 83(2):e281-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.12.064
  10. Meshram MN, Pramanik S, Ranjith CP, Gopal SK, Dobhal R : Dosimetric properties of equivalent-quality flattening filter-free (FFF) and flattened photon beams of Versa HD linear accelerator, Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2016;Vol 17(3):358-370 https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6173
  11. Everardo FM, Kim GY, Yashar CM, Cervino LI : Dosimetric study of the plan quality and dose to organs at risk on tangential breast treatments using the Halcyon linac. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2019;Vol 20(7):58-67 https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12655
  12. Sun T, Lin X, Zhang G, Qiu Q, Li C, Yin Y : Treatment planning comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy with the trilogy and the Halcyon for bilateral breast cancer. Radiation oncology(London, England). 2021;Vol 16(1):35
  13. Sorriaux J, Kacperek A, Rossomme S, Lee JA, Bertrand D, Vynckier S, Sterpin E : Evaluation of GafchromicEBT3 films characteristics in therapy photon, electron and proton beams. Physica medica. 2013; Vol 29(6):599-606 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2012.10.001
  14. Borca VC, Pasquino M, Russo G : Dosimetric characterization and use of GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film for IMRT dose verification. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2013;Vol 14(2):4111
  15. Vu TTT, Pignol JP, Rakovitch E, Spayne J, Paszat L : Variability in Radiation Oncologists' Opinion on the Indication of a Bolus in Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: an International Survey. Clinical oncology (R Coll Radiol). 2007; Vol 19(2):115-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2006.10.004
  16. O'Grady F, Barsky AR, Anamalayil S et al : Increase in Superficial Dose in Whole-Breast Irradiation With Halcyon Straight-Through Linac Compared With Traditional C-arm Linac With Flattening Filter: In vivo Dosimetry and Planning Study. Advances in radiation oncology .Vol 5(1) 2020:120-126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.07.011
  17. Hardcastle N, Soisson E, Metcalfe P, Rosenfeld AB, Tome WA : Dosimetric verification of helical tomotherapy for total scalp irradiation. Medical physics. 2008;Vol 35:5061-5068  https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2996288