• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2004

Introduction : The phantom that includes high density materials such as steel was custom-made to fix lung and bone in order to evaluation inhomogeneity correction at the time of conducting radiation therapy to treat lung cancer. Using this, values resulting from the inhomogeneous correction algorithm are compared on the 2 and 3 dimensional radiation therapy planning systems. Moreover, change in dose calculation was evaluated according to inhomogeneous by comparing with the actual measurement. Materials and Methods : As for the image acquisition, inhomogeneous correction phantom(Pig's vertebra, steel(8.21g/cm3), cork(0.23 g/cm3)) that was custom-made and the CT(Volume zoom, Siemens, Germany) were used. As for the radiation therapy planning system, Marks Plan(2D) and XiO(CMS, USA, 3D) were used. To compare with the measurement value, linear accelerator(CL/1800, Varian, USA) and ion chamber were used. Image, obtained from the CT was used to obtain point dose and dose distribution from the region of interest (ROI) while on the radiation therapy planning device. After measurement was conducted under the same conditions, value on the treatment planning device and measured value were subjected to comparison and analysis. And difference between the resulting for the evaluation on the use (or non-use) of inhomogeneity correction algorithm, and diverse inhomogeneity correction algorithm that is included in the radiation therapy planning device was compared as well. Results : As result of comparing the results of measurement value on the region of interest within the inhomogeneity correction phantom and the value that resulted from the homogeneous and inhomogeneous correction, gained from the therapy planning device, margin of error of the measurement value and inhomogeneous correction value at the location 1 of the lung showed $0.8\%$ on 2D and $0.5\%$ on 3D. Margin of error of the measurement value and inhomogeneous correction value at the location 1 of the steel showed $12\%$ on 2D and $5\%$ on 3D, however, it is possible to see that the value that is not correction and the margin of error of the measurement value stand at $16\%$ and $14\%$, respectively. Moreover, values of the 3D showed lower margin of error compared to 2D. Conclusion : Revision according to the density of tissue must be executed during radiation therapy planning. To ensure a more accurate planning, use of 3D planning system is recommended more so than the 2D Planning system to ensure a more accurate revision on the therapy plan. Moreover, 3D Planning system needs to select and use the most accurate and appropriate inhomogeneous correction algorithm through actual measurement. In addition, comparison and analysis through TLD or film dosimetry are needed.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.269-276
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.