• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2020

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.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.39 no.1
• /
• pp.99-105
• /
• 2016

The noise power spectrum (NPS) is one of the most general methods for measuring the noise amplitude and the quality of an image acquired from a uniform radiation field. The purpose of this study was to compare different NPS methodologies by using megavoltage X-ray energies. The NPS evaluation methods in diagnostic radiation were applied to therapy using the International Electro-technical Commission standard (IEC 62220-1). Various radiation therapy (RT) devices such as TrueBeam$^{TM}$(Varian), BEAMVIEW$^{PLUS}$(Siemens), iViewGT(Elekta) and Clinac$^R$ iX (Varian) were used. In order to measure the region of interest (ROI) of the NPS, we used the following four factors: the overlapping impact, the non-overlapping impact, the flatness and penumbra. As for NPS results, iViewGT(Elekta) had the higher amplitude of noise, compared to BEAMVIEW$^{PLUS}$ (Siemens), TrueBeam$^{TM}$(Varian) flattening filter, Clinac$^{R}$iXaS1000(Varian) and TrueBeam$^{TM}$(Varian) flattening filter free. The present study revealed that various factors could be employed to produce megavoltage imaging (MVI) of the NPS and as a baseline standard for NPS methodologies control in MVI.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.451-461
• /
• 2015

In megavoltage (MV) radiotherapy, delivering the dose to the target volume is important while protecting the surrounding normal tissue. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the modulation transfer function (MTF), the noise power spectrum (NPS), and the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) using an edge block in megavoltage X-ray imaging (MVI). We used an edge block, which consists of tungsten with dimensions of 19 (thickness) ${\times}$ 10 (length) ${\times}$ 1 (width) $cm^3$ and measured the pre-sampling MTF at 6 MV energy. Various radiation therapy (RT) devices such as TrueBeam$^{TM}$ (Varian), BEAMVIEW$^{PLUS}$ (Siemens), iViewGT (Elekta) and Clinac$^{(R)}$iX (Varian) were used. As for MTF results, TrueBeam$^{TM}$(Varian) flattening filter free(FFF) showed the highest values of $0.46mm^{-1}$ and $1.40mm^{-1}$ for MTF 0.5 and 0.1. In NPS, iViewGT (Elekta) showed the lowest noise distribution. In DQE, iViewGT (Elekta) showed the best efficiency at a peak DQE and $1mm^{-1}DQE$ of 0.0026 and 0.00014, respectively. This study could be used not only for traditional QA imaging but also for quantitative MTF, NPS, and DQE measurement for development of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.194-201
• /
• 2013

To investigate monitoring unit (MU) efficiency and plan quality of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using flattening-filter free (FFF) photon beam in association with target size and location. A virtual patient was generated in Eclipse$^{TM}$ (ver. A10, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA) treatment planning system. The length of major and minor axis in axial view was 50 cm and 30 cm, respectively. Cylindrical-shaped targets were generated inside that patient at the center (symmetric target) and in the periphery (asymmetric target, 7.5 cm away from the center of the patient to the right direction) of the virtual patient. The longitudinal length was 10 cm and the diameters were 2, 5, 10 and 15 cm. Total 8 targets were generated. RapidArc$^{TM}$ plans using TrueBeam STx$^{TM}$ were generated for each target. Two full arcs were used and the axis of rotation of the gantry was set to be at the center of the virtual patient. Total MU, homogeneity index (HI), target mean dose, the value of gradient measure and body mean dose were calculated. In the case of symmetric targets, averaged total MU of FFF plan was 23% and 19% higher than that of flattening filter (FF) plan when using 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively. The difference of HI, target mean dose, gradient measure and body mean dose between FF and FFF was less than 0.04, 2.6%, 0.1 cm and 2.2%, respectively. For the asymmetric targets, total MU of FFF plan was 21% and 32% was higher than that of FF when using 6 MV and 10 MV photons, respectively. The homogeneity of the target was always worse when using FFF than using FF. The maximum difference of HI was 0.22. The target mean dose of FFF was 3.2% and 4.1% higher than that of FF for the 6 MV and 10 MV, respectively. The difference of gradient measure was less than 0.1 cm. The body mean dose was higher when using FFF than FF about 4.2% and 2.8% for the 6 MV and 10 MV, respectively. No significant differences between VMAT plans of FFF beam and FF beam were observed in terms of quality of treatment plan. The HI was higher when using FFF 10 MV photons for the asymmetric targets. The MU was increased noticeably when using FFF photon beams.

• Journal of the Korean Physical Society
• /
• v.80
• /
• pp.516-525
• /
• 2022

This study is to assess the clinical use of commercial PerFRACTION^TM for patient-specific quality assurance of volumetric-modulated arc therapy. Forty-six pretreatment verification plans for patients treated using a TrueBeam STx linear accelerator for lesions in various treatment sites such as brain, head and neck (H&N), prostate, and lung were included in this study. All pretreatment verification plans were generated using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). Dose distributions obtained from electronic portal imaging device (EPID), ArcCHECK^TM, and two-dimensional (2D)/three-dimensional (3D) PerFRACTION^TM were then compared with the dose distribution calculated from the Eclipse TPS. In addition, the correlation between the plan complexity (the modulation complexity score and the leaf travel modulation complexity score) and the gamma passing rates (GPRs) of each quality assurance (QA) system was evaluated by calculating Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r_s) with the corresponding p-values. The gamma passing rates of 46 patients analyzed with the 2D/3D PerFRACTION^TM using the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria showed almost similar trends to those analyzed with the Portal dose imaging prediction (PDIP) and ArcCHECK^TM except for those analyzed with ArcCHECK^TM using the 2%/2 mm criterion. Most of weak or moderate correlations between GPRs and plan complexity were observed for all QA systems. The trend of mean rs between GPRs using PDIP and 2D/3D PerFRACTION^TM for both criteria and plan complexity indices as in the GPRs analysis was significantly similar for brain, prostate, and lung cases with lower complexity compared to H&N case. Furthermore, the trend of mean rs for 2D/3D PerFRACTION^TM for H&N case with high complexity was similar to that of ArcCHECK^TM and slightly lower correlation was observed than that of PDIP. This work showed that the performance of 2D/3D PerFRACTION^TM for pretreatment patient-specific QA was almost comparable to that of PDIP, although there was small difference from ArcCHECK^TM for some cases. Thus, we found that the PerFRACTION^TM is a suitable QA system for pretreatment patient-specific QA in a variety of treatment sites.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.31-43
• /
• 2015

Purpose : Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has proved its efficacy in several patient populations with primary and metastatic limited tumors. Because SBRT prescription is high dose level than Conventional radiation therapy. SBRT plan is necessary for effective Organ at risk (OAR) protection and sufficient Planning target volume (PTV) dose coverage. In particular, multi-target cases may result excessive doses to OAR and hot spot due to dose overlap. This study evaluate usefulness of Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) in dosimetric and technical considerations using Flattening filter free (FFF) beam. Materials and Methods : The treatment plans for five patients, being treated on TrueBeam STx(Varian$^{TM}$, USA) with VMAT using 10MV FFF beam and Standard conformal radiotherapy (CRT) using 15MV Flattening filter (FF) beam. PTV, liver, duodenum, bowel, spinal cord, esophagus, stomach dose were evaluated using the dose volume histogram(DVH). Conformity index(CI), homogeneity index(HI), Paddick's index(PCI) for the PTV was assessed. Total Monitor unit (MU) and beam on time was assessed. Results : Average value of CI, HI and PCI for PTV was $1.381{\pm}0.028$, $1.096{\pm}0.016$, $0.944{\pm}0.473$ in VMAT and $1.381{\pm}0.042$, $1.136{\pm}0.042$, $1.534{\pm}0.465$ in CRT respectively. OAR dose in CRT plans evaluated 1.8 times higher than VMAT. Total MU in VMAT evaluated 1.3 times increase than CRT. Average beam on time was 6.8 minute in VMAT and 21.3 minute in CRT. Conclusion : VMAT for SBRT in multi-target liver cancer using FFF beam is effective treatment techniqe in dosimetric and technical considerations. VMAT decrease intra-fraction error due to treatment time shortening using high dose rate of FFF beam.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The pre-treatment QA using Portal dosimetry for Volumetric Arc Therapy To analyze whether maintaining the reproducibility depending on various factors. Materials and Methods : Test was used for TrueBeam STx$^{TM}$ (Ver.1.5, Varian, USA). Varian Eclipse Treatment planning system(TPS) was used for planning with total of seven patients include head and neck cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and cervical cancer was established for a Portal dosimetry QA plan. In order to measure these plans, Portal Dosimetry application (Ver.10) (Varian) and Portal Vision aS1000 Imager was used. Each Points of QA was determined by dividing, before and after morning treatment, and the after afternoon treatment ended (after 4 hours). Calibration of EPID(Dark field correction, Flood field correction, Dose normalization) was implemented before Every QA measure points. MLC initialize was implemented after each QA points and QA was retried. Also before QA measurements, Beam Ouput at the each of QA points was measured using the Water Phantom and Ionization chamber(IBA dosimetry, Germany). Results : The mean values of the Gamma pass rate(GPR, 3%, 3mm) for every patients between morning, afternoon and evening was 97.3%, 96.1%, 95.4% and the patient's showing maximum difference was 95.7%, 94.2% 93.7%. The mean value of GPR before and after EPID calibration were 95.94%, 96.01%. The mean value of Beam Output were 100.45%, 100.46%, 100.59% at each QA points. The mean value of GPR before and after MLC initialization were 95.83%, 96.40%. Conclusion : Maintain the reproducibility of the Portal Dosimetry as a VMAT QA tool required management of the various factors that can affect the dosimetry.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.220-229
• /
• 2013

Respiratory-induced dynamic tumors render free-breathing cone-beam computed tomography (FBCBCT) images with motion artifacts complicating the task of quantifying the internal target volume (ITV). The purpose of this paper is to study the visibility of the revealed ITV when the imaging dose parameters, such as the kVp and mAs, are varied. The $Trilogy^{TM}$ linear accelerator with an On-Board Imaging ($OBI^{TM}$) system was used to acquire low-imaging-dose-mode (LIDM: 110 kVp, 20 mA, 20 ms/frame) and high-imaging-dose-mode (HIDM: 125 kVp, 80 mA, 25 ms/frame) FBCBCT images of a 3-cm diameter sphere (density=0.855 $g/cm^3$) moving in accordance to various sinusoidal breathing patterns, each with an unique inhalation-to-exhalation (I/E) ratio, amplitude, and period. In terms of image ITV contrast, there was a small overall average change of the ITV contrast when going from HIDM to LIDM of $6.5{\pm}5.1%$ for all breathing patterns. As for the ITV visible volume measurements, there was an insignificant difference between the ITV of both the LIDM- and HIDM-FBCBCT images with an average difference of $0.5{\pm}0.5%$, for all cases, despite the large difference in the imaging dose (approximately five-fold difference of ~0.8 and 4 cGy/scan). That indicates that the ITV visibility is not very sensitive to changes in imaging dose. However, both of the FBCBCT consistently underestimated the true ITV dimensions by up to 34.8% irrespective of the imaging dose mode due to significant motion artifacts, and thus, this imaging technique is not adequate to accurately visualize the ITV for image guidance. Due to the insignificant impact of imaging dose on ITV visibility, a plausible, alternative strategy would be to acquire more X-ray projections at the LIDM setting to allow 4DCBCT imaging to better define the ITV, and at the same time, maintain a reasonable imaging dose, i.e., comparable to a single HIDM-FBCBCT scan.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.257-264
• /
• 2014

Purpose : Photoneutron dose in high-energy photon radiotherapy at linear accelerator increase the risk for secondary cancer. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the dose variation of photoneutron with different treatment method, flattening filter, dose rate and gantry angle in radiation therapy with high-energy photon beam ($E{\geq}8MeV$). Materials and Methods : TrueBeam $ST{\time}TM$(Ver1.5, Varian, USA) and Korea Tissue Equivalent Proportional Counter (KTEPC) were used to detect the photoneutron dose out of the high-energy photon field. Complex Patient plans using Eclipse planning system (Version 10.0, Varian, USA) was used to experiment with different treatment technique(IMRT, VMAT), condition of flattening filter and three different dose rate. Scattered photoneutron dose was measured at eight different gantry angles with open field (Field size : $5{\time}5cm$). Results : The mean values of the detected photoneutron dose from IMRT and VMAT were $449.7{\mu}Sv$, $2940.7{\mu}Sv$. The mean values of the detected photoneutron dose with Flattening Filter(FF) and Flattening Filter Free(FFF) were measured as $2940.7{\mu}Sv$, $232.0{\mu}Sv$. The mean values of the photoneutron dose for each test plan (case 1, case 2 and case 3) with FFF at the three different dose rate (400, 1200, 2400 MU/min) were $3242.5{\mu}Sv$, $3189.4{\mu}Sv$, $3191.2{\mu}Sv$ with case 1, $3493.2{\mu}Sv$, $3482.6{\mu}Sv$, $3477.2{\mu}Sv$ with case 2 and $4592.2{\mu}Sv$, $4580.0{\mu}Sv$, $4542.3{\mu}Sv$ with case 3, respectively. The mean values of the photoneutron dose at eight different gantry angles ($0^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$, $135^{\circ}$, $180^{\circ}$, $225^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$) were measured as $3.2{\mu}Sv$, $4.3{\mu}Sv$, $5.3{\mu}Sv$, $11.3{\mu}Sv$, $14.7{\mu}Sv$, $11.2{\mu}Sv$, $3.7{\mu}Sv$, $3.0{\mu}Sv$ at 10MV and as $373.7{\mu}Sv$, $369.6{\mu}Sv$, $384.4{\mu}Sv$, $423.6{\mu}Sv$, $447.1{\mu}Sv$, $448.0{\mu}Sv$, $384.5{\mu}Sv$, $377.3{\mu}Sv$ at 15MV. Conclusion : As a result, it is possible to reduce photoneutron dose using FFF mode and VMAT method with TrueBeam $ST{\time}TM$. The risk for secondary cancer of the patients will be decreased with continuous evaluation of the photoneutron dose.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.363-368
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The aim of this study was to appraise properties for radiation therapy techniques and effectiveness of time and economy to a patient in the case of applying flattening filter-free (3F) and flattening filter (2F) beam to the radiation therapy. Materials and Methods : Alderson rando phantom was scanned for computed tomography image. Treatment plans for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with 3F and 2F beam were designed for prostate cancer. To evaluate the differences between the 3F and 2F beam, total monitor units (MUs), beam on time (BOT) and gantry rotation time (GRT) were used and measured with $TrueBeam^{TM}$ STx and Surveillance And Measurement (SAM) 940 detector was used for photoneutron emitted by using 3F and 2F. To assess temporal and economical aspect for a patient, total treatment periods and medical fees were estimated. Results : In using 3F beam, total MUs in IMRT plan increased the highest up to 34.0% and in the test of BOT, GRT and photoneutron, the values in SBRT plan decreased the lowest 39.8, 38.6 and 48.1%, respectively. In the temporal and economical aspect, there were no differences between 3F and 2F beam in all of plans and the results showed that 10 days and 169,560 won was lowest in SBRT plan. Conclusion : According as the results, total MUs increased by using 3F beam than 2F beam but BOT, GRT and photoneutron decreased. From above the results, using 3F beam can decrease intra-fraction setup error and risk of radiation-induced secondary malignancy. But, using 3F beam did not make the benefits of temporal and economical aspect for a patient with the radiation therapy.