• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of dose delivery according to the patient's breathing cycle in Gated Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Materials and Methods : TrueBeam STxTM(Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA) was used in this experiment. The Computed tomography(CT) images that were acquired with RANDO Phantom(Alderson Research Laboratories Inc. Stamford. CT, USA), using Computerized treatment planning system(Eclipse 10.0, Varian, USA), were used to create VMAT plans using 10MV FFF with 1500 cGy/fx (case 1, 2, 3) and 220 cGy/fx(case 4, 5, 6) of doserate of 1200 MU/min. The regular respiratory period of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 sec and the patients respiratory period of 2.2 and 3.5 sec were reproduced with the $QUASAR^{TM}$ Respiratory Motion Phantom(Modus Medical Devices Inc), and it was set up to deliver radiation at the phase mode between the ranges of 30 to 70%. The results were measured at respective respiratory conditions by a 2-Dimensional ion chamber array detector(I'mRT Matrixx, IBA Dosimetry, Germany) and a MultiCube Phantom(IBA Dosimetry, Germany), and the Gamma pass rate(3 mm, 3%) were compared by the IMRT analysis program(OmniPro I'mRT system software Version 1.7b, IBA Dosimetry, Germany) Results : The gamma pass rates of Case 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were the results of 100.0, 97.6, 98.1, 96.3, 93.0, 94.8% at a regular respiratory period of 1.5 sec and 98.8, 99.5, 97.5, 99.5, 98.3, 99.6% at 2.5 sec, 99.6, 96.6, 97.5, 99.2, 97.8, 99.1% at 3.5 sec and 99.4, 96.3, 97.2, 99.0, 98.0, 99.3% at 4.5 sec, respectively. When a patient's respiration was reproduced, 97.7, 95.4, 96.2, 98.9, 96.2, 98.4% at average respiratory period of 2.2 sec, and 97.3, 97.5, 96.8, 100.0, 99.3, 99.8% at 3.5 sec, respectively. Conclusion : The experiment showed clinically reliable results of a Gamma pass rate of 95% or more when 2.5 sec or more of a regular breathing period and the patient's breathing were reproduced. While it showed the results of 93.0% and 94.8% at a regular breathing period of 1.5 sec of Case 5 and 6, it could be confirmed that the accurate dose delivery could be possible on the most respiratory conditions because based on the results of 100 patients's respiratory period analysis as no one sustained a respiration of 1.5 sec. But, pretreatment dose verification should be precede because we can't exclude the possibility of error occurrence due to extremely short respiratory period, also a training at the simulation and careful monitoring are necessary for a patient to maintain stable breathing. Consequently, more reliable and accurate treatments can be administered.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.21-28
• /
• 2014

Purpose : For non-small cell lung cancer, if the treatment volume is large or the total lung volume is small, and the tumor is located in midline of patient's body, total lung dose tends to increase due to tolerance dose of spinal cord. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the total lung dose of three dimensional conformal radiotherapy(3D CRT), intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) using restricted angle for non-small cell lung cancer patients. Materials and Methods : The treatment plans for four patients, being treated on TrueBeam STx($Varian^{TM}$, USA) with 10 MV and prescribed dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions, 3D CRT, restricted angle IMRT and VAMT radiotherapy plans were established. Planning target volume(PTV), dose to total lung and spinal cord were evaluated using the dose volume histogram(DVH). Conformity index(CI), homogeneity index(HI), Paddick's index(PCI) for the PTV, $V_{30}$, $V_{20}$, $V_{10}$, $V_5$, mean dose for total lung and maximum dose for spinal cord was assessed. Results : Average value of CI, HI and PCI for PTV was $0.944{\pm}0.009$, $1.106{\pm}0.027$, $1.084{\pm}0.016$ respectively. $V_{20}$ values from 3D CRT, IMRT and VMAT plans were 30.7%, 20.2% and 21.2% for the first patient, 33.0%, 29.2% and 31.5% for second patient, 51.3%, 34.3% and 36.9% for third patient, finally 56.9%, 33.7% and 40.0% for the last patient. It was noticed that the $V_{20}$ was lowest in the IMRT plan using restricted angle. Maximum dose for spinal cord was evaluated to lower than the tolerance dose. Conclusion : For non-small cell lung cancer, IMRT with restricted angle or VMAT could minimize the lung dose and lower the dose to spinal cord below the tolerance level. Considering PTV coverage and tolerance dose to spinal cord, it was possible to obtain IMRT plan with smaller angle and this could result in lower dose to lung when compared to VMAT.