Browse > Article

A Study on Superficial Dose of 6MV-FFF in HalcyonTM LINAC: Phantom Study  

Choi, Seong Hoon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center)
Um, Ki Cheon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center)
Yoo, Soon Mi (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center)
Park, Je Wan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center)
Song, Heung Kwon (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center)
Yoon, In Ha (Department of Radiation Oncology, Asan Medical Center)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy / v.32, no., 2020 , pp. 31-39 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The aims of this study were to compare the superficial dose with Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeter(OSLD) measurement and Treatment Planning System(TPS) calculation for 6MV-Flattening Filter Free(FFF) energy using HalcyonTM and TrueBeamTM. Materials and methods: Phantom study was performed using the CT images of human phantom. In the treatment planning system, the Planning Target Volume(PTV) was contoured which is similar to Glottic cancer. Furthermore, Point(M), Point(R), and Point(L) were contoured at the iso-center of head and neck region and 5mm bolus was applied to the body contour. Each treatment plans using 6MV-FFF energy from HalcyonTM and TrueBeamTM with static Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy(IMRT) and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy(VMAT) were established with eclipse. To reproduce the same position as the TPS, OSLDs were placed at the iso-center point and 5mm bolus was applied to compare the error rate after the dose delivery. Result: The results of the study using human phantom are as follows. In case of HalcyonTM, the mean absolute error rates of the point dose using the treatment planning system and the dose measured by OSLD were 1.7%±1.2% for VMAT and 4.0±2.8% for IMRT. Also TrueBeamTM was identified as 2.4±0.4% and 8.6±1.8% respectively for VMAT and IMRT. Conclusion: Through the results of this study, TrueBeamTM confirmed that the average error rate was 2.4 times higher for VMAT and 3.6 times higher for IMRT than HalcyonTM. Therefore, based on the results of this study, If we need a more accurate dose assessment for the superficial dose, It is expected that using HalcyonTM would be better than TrueBeamTM.
Keywords
Superficial dose; $Halcyon^{TM}$; $TrueBeam^{TM}$; OSLD; TPS;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Korea central cancer Registry, National cancer center. Annual report of cancer statistics in korea in 2017, Ministry of Health and welfare (2020).
2 Steven Michiels, Kenneth Poels, Wouter Crijns et al.: Volumetric modulated arc therapy of head-and-neck cancer on a fast-rotating O-ring linac: plan quality and delivery time comparison with a Carm linac. Radiotherapy and Oncology. Vol 128(3) 2018:479-484   DOI
3 H.Kim, M.S.Huq, C.J. Houser et al: Early clinical experience with varian halcyon V2 linear accelerator: Dual-isocenter IMRT planning and delivery with portal dosimetry for gynecological cancer treatments. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Physics, Vol 125(1) 2019:E705
4 Michele M.Kim, Douglas Bollinger, Chris Kennedy et al: Dosimetric Characterization of the Dual Layer MLC system for an O-Ring Linear Accelerator. Technology in Cancer Research & Trearment. Vol 18 2019:1-7
5 Mikoto Tamura, Kenji Matsumoto, Masakazu Otsuka et al: Plan complexity quantification of dual-layer multi-leaf collimator for volumetric modulated arc therapy with Halcyon linac. Phys Eng Sci Med. Vol 43(3) 2020:947-957   DOI
6 Molham M. Eyadeh, Marcin Wierzbicki, Kevin R. Diamond: Measurements of superficial dose distributions in radiation therapy using translucent cryogel dosimeters. J.Appl.Clin.Med.Phys.,VOl 18(3) 2017:153-162   DOI
7 Cashmore J.: The characterization of unflattened photon beams from a 6MV linear accelerator. Phys. Med. Biol. Vol 53(7) 2008:1933-1946   DOI
8 Fionnbarr O'Grady, Andrew R Barsky, Shibu Anamalyil.: 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   DOI
9 An-Cheng Shiau M.S, Tung-Ho Chen M.S, JengFong Chiou M.D.: Surface and superficial dose dosimetric verification for postmastectomy radiotherapy. Medical Dosimetry. Vol 37(4) 2012:417-424   DOI
10 S Mutic, D A Low: Superficial doses from serial tomotherapy delivery. Med Phys. Vol 27(1) 2000:163-165   DOI
11 Tien C.J., R.Ebeling, HiattJ.R., Curran B et al: Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimetry for High Dose Rate Brachytherapy. frontiers in Oncology. Vol91(2) 2012:1-7
12 Audrey H Zhuang, Arthur J Olch: Validation of OSLD and a treatment planning system for surface dose determination in IMRT treatments. Med Phys. VOl 41(8) 2014: 081720-1-081720-8   DOI
13 Zhenia Gopalakrishnanm, Raghuram K.Nair, Saju Bhasi et al: Verification of treatment planning algorithms using optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters in a breast phantom. J med Phys. Vol 43(4) 2018:264-269   DOI
14 Su Chul Han, Kum Bae Kim, Sang Hyoun Choi et al: Changes of Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimeter Sensitivity with High Dose. Vol 27(2) 2016:98   DOI
15 Ugur AKBAS, Nazmiye DONMEZ KESEN, Canan KOKSAL et al: Investigation of Surface Dose Using Film Dosimetry and Commercial Treatment Planning System for Larynx Cancer Treatment with Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy. Turk J Oncol. Vol 33(1) 2018:12-17
16 Taoran Li, Alexander Lin, Wei Zou et al: Impact of Multi-leaf Collimator Parameters on Head and Neck Plan Quality and Delivery: A Comparison between HalcyonTM and TruebeamTM Delivery Systems. Cureus. Vol 10(11) 2018:3648