• 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.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.171-178
• /
• 2016

Purpose : In order to minimize the dose of femoral head as an appropriate treatment plan for rectal cancer radiation therapy, we compare and evaluate the usefulness of 3-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 3fCRT), which is a universal treatment method, and 5-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 5fCRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of rectal cancer that treated with 21EX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). 3fCRT and 5fCRT plan has $0^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, $95^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$, $265^{\circ}$ gantry angle, respectively. VMAT plan parameters consisted of 15MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ 1 arac. Treatment prescription was employed delivering 54Gy to recum in 30 fractions. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, VMAT plans were optimized and calculated twice, and normalized to the target V100%=95%. The indexes of evaluation are D of Both femoral head and aceta fossa, total MU, H.I.(Homogeneity index) and C.I.(Conformity index) of the PTV. All VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : D of Rt. femoral head was 53.08 Gy, 50.27 Gy, and 30.92 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. D of Rt. aceta fossa was 54.86 Gy, 52.40 Gy, 30.37 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. The maximum dose of both femoral head and aceta fossa was higher in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. C.I. showed the lowest VMAT treatment plan with an average of 1.64, 1.48, and 0.99 in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. There was no significant difference on H.I. of the PTV among three plans. Total MU showed that the VMAT treatment plan used 124.4MU and 299MU more than the 3fCRT and 5fCRT treatment plan, respectively. IMRT verification gamma test results for the VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2mm/2%. Conclusion : In rectal cancer treatment, the VMAT plan was shown to be advantageous in most of the evaluation indexes compared to the 3D plan, and the dose of the femoral head was greatly reduced. However, because of practical limitations there may be a case where it is difficult to select a VMAT treatment plan. 5fCRT has the advantage of reducing the dose of the femoral head as compared to the existing 3fCRT, without regard to additional problems. Therefore, not only would it extend survival time but the quality of life in general, if hospitals improved radiation therapy efficiency by selecting the treatment plan in accordance with the hospital's situation.