• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.332-339
• /
• 2010

We aimed to setup an adaptive radiation therapy platform using cone-beam CT (CBCT) and multileaf collimator (MLC) log data and also intended to analyze a trend of dose calculation errors during the procedure based on a phantom study. We took CT and CBCT images of Catphan-600 (The Phantom Laboratory, USA) phantom, and made a simple step-and-shoot intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan based on the CT. Original plan doses were recalculated based on the CT ($CT_{plan}$) and the CBCT ($CBCT_{plan}$). Delivered monitor unit weights and leaves-positions during beam delivery for each MLC segment were extracted from the MLC log data then we reconstructed delivered doses based on the CT ($CT_{recon}$) and CBCT ($CBCT_{recon}$) respectively using the extracted information. Dose calculation errors were evaluated by two-dimensional dose discrepancies ($CT_{plan}$ was the benchmark), gamma index and dose-volume histograms (DVHs). From the dose differences and DVHs, it was estimated that the delivered dose was slightly greater than the planned dose; however, it was insignificant. Gamma index result showed that dose calculation error on CBCT using planned or reconstructed data were relatively greater than CT based calculation. In addition, there were significant discrepancies on the edge of each beam while those were less than errors due to inconsistency of CT and CBCT. $CBCT_{recon}$ showed coupled effects of above two kinds of errors; however, total error was decreased even though overall uncertainty for the evaluation of delivered dose on the CBCT was increased. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate dose calculation errors separately as a setup error, dose calculation error due to CBCT image quality and reconstructed dose error which is actually what we want to know.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.9-14
• /
• 2021

This study examined dose change depending on the reposition error of the junction at the time of treatment with multi-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy. This study selected a random treatment region in the Arccheck Phantom and established the treatment plan for multi-isocenter volumetric modulated arc therapy. Then, after setting the error of the junction at 0 ~ 4 mm in the X (left), Y (upper), and Z (inner and outer) directions, the area was irradiated using a linear accelerator; the point doses and gamma indexes obtained through the Phantom were subsequently analyzed. It was found that when errors of 2 and 4 mm took place in the X and Y directions, the gamma pass rates (point doses) were 99.3% (2.085) and 98% (2.079 Gy) in the former direction and 98.5% (2.088) and 95.5% (2.093 Gy) in the latter direction, respectively. In addition, when errors of 1, 2, and 4 mm occurred in the inner and outer parts of the Z direction, the gamma pass rates (point doses) were found to be 94.8% (2.131), 82.6% (2.164), and 72.8% (2.22 Gy) in the former part and 93.4% (2.069), 90.6% (2.047), and 79.7% (1.962 Gy) in the latter part, respectively. In the X and Y directions, errors up to 4 mm were tolerable; however, in the Z direction, error values exceeding 1 mm were beyond the tolerance level. This suggests that for high and low dose areas, errors in the direction same as the progress direction in the treatment region have a more sensitive dose distribution. If the guidelines for set-up errors are established at the institutional level through continuous research in the future, it will be possible to provide good quality treatment using junctions.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.93-109
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The radiochromic film (Gafchromic EBT3, Ashland Advanced Materials, USA) and 3-dimensional analysis system dosimetry checkTM (DC, MathResolutions, USA) were evaluated for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of helical tomotherapy. Materials and Methods: Depending on the tumors' positions, three types of targets, which are the abdominal tumor (130.6㎤), retroperitoneal tumor (849.0㎤), and the whole abdominal metastasis tumor (3131.0㎤) applied to the humanoid phantom (Anderson Rando Phantom, USA). We established a total of 12 comparative treatment plans by the four geometric conditions of the beam irradiation, which are the different field widths (FW) of 2.5-cm, 5.0-cm, and pitches of 0.287, 0.43. Ionization measurements (1D) with EBT3 by inserting the cheese phantom (2D) were compared to DC measurements of the 3D dose reconstruction on CT images from beam fluence log information. For the clinical feasibility evaluation of the DC, dose reconstruction has been performed using the same cheese phantom with the EBT3 method. Recalculated dose distributions revealed the dose error information during the actual irradiation on the same CT images quantitatively compared to the treatment plan. The Thread effect, which might appear in the Helical Tomotherapy, was analyzed by ripple amplitude (%). We also performed gamma index analysis (DD: 3mm/ DTA: 3%, pass threshold limit: 95%) for pattern check of the dose distribution. Results: Ripple amplitude measurement resulted in the highest average of 23.1% in the peritoneum tumor. In the radiochromic film analysis, the absolute dose was on average 0.9±0.4%, and gamma index analysis was on average 96.4±2.2% (Passing rate: >95%), which could be limited to the large target sizes such as the whole abdominal metastasis tumor. In the DC analysis with the humanoid phantom for FW of 5.0-cm, the three regions' average was 91.8±6.4% in the 2D and 3D plan. The three planes (axial, coronal, and sagittal) and dose profile could be analyzed with the entire peritoneum tumor and the whole abdominal metastasis target, with planned dose distributions. The dose errors based on the dose-volume histogram in the DC evaluations increased depending on FW and pitch. Conclusion: The DC method could implement a dose error analysis on the 3D patient image data by the measured beam fluence log information only without any dosimetry tools for patient-specific quality assurance. Also, there may be no limit to apply for the tumor location and size; therefore, the DC could be useful in patient-specific QAl during the treatment of Helical Tomotherapy of large and irregular tumors.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.28-34
• /
• 2011

The measurement-based verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a time-and labor-consuming procedure. Instead, this study aims to develop a MU fluence reconstruction method for IMRT QA. Total actual fluences from treatment planning system (TPS, Eclipse 8.6, Varian) were selected as a reference. Delivered leaf positions according to MU were extracted by the dynalog file generated after IMRT delivery. An in-house software was develop to reconstruct MU fluence from the acquired delivered leaf position data using MATLAB. We investigated five patient's plans delivered by both step-and-shoot IMRT and sliding window technologies. The total actual fluence was compared with the MU fluence reconstructed by using commercial software (Verisoft 3.1, PTW) and gamma analysis method (criteria: 3%/3 mm and 2%/1 mm). Gamma pass rates were $97.8{\pm}1.33$% and the reconstructed fluence was shown good agreement with RTP-based actual fluence. The fluence from step and shoot IMRT was shown slightly higher agreement with the actual fluence than that from sliding window IMRT. If moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations, the developed method can be used for IMRT QA. A point dose calculation method from reconstructed fluences is under development for the routine IMRT QA purpose.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.42 no.3
• /
• pp.217-222
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dose distribution by gantry rotation and MLC moving speed on treatment planning system(TPS) and linear accelerator. The dose analyzer phantom(Delta 4) was scanned by CT simulator for treatment planning. The planning target volumes(PTVs) of prostate and pancreas was prescribed 6,500 cGy, 5,000 cGy on VMAT(Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy) by TPS while MLC speed changed. The analyzer phantom was irradiated linear accelerator using by planned parameters. Dose distribution of PTVs were evaluated by the homogeneity index, conformity index, dose volume histogram of organ at risk(rectum, bladder, spinal cord, kidney). And irradiated dose analysis were evaluated dose distribution and conformity by gamma index. The PTV dose of pancreas was 4,993 cGy during 0.1 cm/deg leaf and gantry that was the most closest prescribed dose(5,000 cGy). The dose of spinal cord, left kidney, and right kidney were accessed the lowest during 0.1 cm/deg, 1.5 cm/deg, 0.3 cm/deg. The PTV dose of prostate was 6,466 cGy during 0.1 cm/deg leaf and gantry that was the most closest prescribed dose(6,500 cGy). The dose of bladder and rectum were accessed the lowest during 0.3 cm/deg, 2.0 cm/deg. For gamma index, pancreas and prostate were analyzed the lowest error 100% at 0.8, 1.0 cm/deg and 99.6% at 0.3, 0.5 cm/deg. We should used the optimal leaf speed according to the gantry rotation if the treatment cases are performed VMAT.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.255-263
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient specific quality assurance (QA) results of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) through the AAPM Task Group Report 119. Using the treatment planning system, both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were established. The absolute dose and relative dose for the target and OAR were measured by using an ion chamber and the bi-planar diode array, respectively. The plan evaluation was used by the Dose volume histogram (DVH) and the dose verification was implemented by compare the measured value with the calculated value. For the evaluation of plan, in case of prostate, both IMRT and VMAT were closed the goal of target and OARs. In case of H&N and Multi-target, IMRT was not reached the goal of target, but VMAT was reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(easy), both were reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(hard), both were reached the goal of target but not reached the goal of OARs. For the evaluation of absolute dose, in case of IMRT, the mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.24{\pm}2.06%$ and $1.4{\pm}2.9%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 3.65% and 4.39% for target and OAR, respectively. In case of VMAT the mean of relative error was $2.06{\pm}0.64%$ and $2.21{\pm}0.74%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 4.09% and 3.04% for target and OAR, respectively. For the evaluation of relative dose, in case of IMRT, the average percentage of passing gamma criteria (3mm/3%) were $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ and the confidence limits were 3.78%. In case of VMAT, the average percentage were $98.2{\pm}1.1%$ and the confidence limits were 3.95%. We performed IMRT and VMAT patient specific QA using TG-119 based procedure, all analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119. So, the IMRT and VMAT of our institution was confirmed the accuracy.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy of correcting the targeting error through the Target Location System (TLS) for the location change error of the reference point which arises from the movement or motion of patient during the treatment using the CyberKnife. Materials and Methods: In this test, Gafchromic MD-55 film was inserted into the head and neck phantom to analyze the accuracy of the targeting, and then the 6 MV X-ray of CyberKnife (CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System G4, Accuray, US) was irradiated. End to End (E2E) program was used to analyze the accuracy of targeting, which is provided by Accuray Corporation. To compute the error of the targeting, the test was carried out with the films that were irradiated 12 times by maintaining the distance within the rage of $0{\pm}0.2\;mm$ toward x, y, z from the reference point and maintaining the angle within the rage of $0{\pm}0.2^{\circ}$ toward roll, pitch, yaw, and then with the films which were irradiated 6 times by applying intentional movement. And the correlation in the average value of the reference film and the test film were analyzed through independent samples t-test. In addition, the consistency of dose distribution through gamma-index method (dose difference: 3%) was quantified, compared, and analyzed by varying the distance to agreement (DTA) to 1 mm, 1.5 mm, 2 mm, respectively. Results: E2E test result indicated that the average error of the reference film was 0.405 mm and the standard deviation was 0.069 mm. The average error of the test film was 0.413 mm with the standard deviation of 0.121 mm. The result of independent sampling t-test for both averages showed that the significant probability was P=0.836 (confidence level: 95%). Besides, by comparing the consistency of dose distribution of DTA through 1 mm, 1.5 mm, 2 mm, it was found that the average dose distribution of axial film was 95.04%, 97.56%, 98.13%, respectively in 3,314 locations of the reference film, consistent with the average dose distribution of sagittal film that was 95.47%, 97.68%, 98.47%, respectively. By comparing with the test film, it was found that the average dose distribution of axial film was 96.38%, 97.57%, 98.04%, respectively, at 3,323 locations, consistent with the average dose distribution of sagittal film which was 95.50%, 97.87%, 98.36%, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic CyberKnife traces and complements in real time the error in the location change of the reference point caused by the motion or movement of patient during the treatment and provides the accuracy with the consistency of over 95% dose distribution and the targeting error below 1 mm.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.15-25
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study is to evaluate plan quality and dose accuracy for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) on the TG-119 and is to investigate the effects on variation of the selectable optimization parameters of VMAT. VMAT treatment planning was implemented on a Varian iX linear accelerator with ARIA record and verify system (Varian Mecical System Palo Alto, CA) and Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system (Nucletron BV, Veenendaal, Netherlands). Plan quality and dosimetric accuracy were evaluated by effect of varying a number of arc, gantry spacing and delivery time for the test geometries provided in TG-119. Plan quality for the target and OAR was evaluated by the mean value and the standard deviation of the Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs). The ionization chamber and $Delta^{4PT}$ bi-planar diode array were used for the dose evaluation. For treatment planning evaluation, all structure sets closed to the goals in the case of single arc, except for the C-shape (hard), and all structure sets achieved the goals in the case of dual arc, except for C-shape (hard). For the variation of a number of arc, the simple structure such as a prostate did not have the difference between single arc and dual arc, whereas the complex structure such as a head and neck showed a superior result in the case of dual arc. The dose distribution with gantry spacing of $4^{\circ}$ was shown better plan quality than the gantry spacing of $6^{\circ}$, but was similar results compared with gantry spacing of $2^{\circ}$. For the verification of dose accuracy with single arc and dual arc, the mean value of a relative error between measured and calculated value were within 3% and 4% for point dose and confidence limit values, respectively. For the verification on dose accuracy with the gantry intervals of $2^{\circ}$, $4^{\circ}$ and $6^{\circ}$, the mean values of relative error were within 3% and 5% for point dose and confidence limit values, respectively. In the verification of dose distribution with $Delta^{4PT}$ bi-planar diode array, gamma passing rate was $98.72{\pm}1.52%$ and $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ for single arc and dual arc, respectively. The confidence limit values were within 4%. The smaller the gantry spacing, the more accuracy results were shown. In this study, we performed the VMAT QA based on TG-119 procedure, and demonstrated that all structure sets were satisfied with acceptance criteria. And also, the results for the selective optimization variables informed the importance of selection for the suitable variables according to the clinical cases.