• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.9-14
• /
• 2013

Purpose: High-energy radiotherapy with 10 MV or higher develops photoneutron through photonuclear reaction. Photoneutron has higher radiation weighting factor than X-ray, thus low dose can greatly affect the human body. An accurate dosimetric calculation and consultation are needed. This study compared and analyzed the dose change of photoneutron in terms of space according to the size of photon beam energy and treatment methods. Materials and Methods: To measure the dose change of photoneutron by the size of photon beam energy, patients with the same therapy area were recruited and conventional plans with 10 MV and 15 MV were each made. To measure the difference between the two treatment methods, 10 MV conventional plan and 10 MV IMRT plan was made. A detector was placed at the point which was 100 cm away from the photon beam isocenter, which was placed in the center of $^3He$ proportional counter, and the photoneutron dose was measured. $^3He$ proportional counter was placed 50 cm longitudinally superior to and inferior to the couch with the central point as the standard to measure the dose change by position changes. A commercial program was used for dose change analysis. Results: The average integral dose by energy size was $220.27{\mu}Sv$ and $526.61{\mu}Sv$ in 10 MV and 15 MV conventional RT, respectively. The average dose increased 2.39 times in 15 MV conventional RT. The average photoneutron integral dose in conventional RT and IMRT with the same energy was $220.27{\mu}Sv$ and $308.27{\mu}Sv$ each; the dose in IMRT increased 1.40 times. The average photoneutron integral dose by measurement location resulted significantly higher in point 2 than 3 in conventional RT, 7.1% higher in 10 MV, and 3.0% higher in 15 MV. Conclusion: When high energy radiotherapy, it should consider energy selection, treatment method and patient position to reduce unnecessary dose by photoneutron. Also, the dose data of photoneutron needs to be systematized to find methods to apply computerization programs. This is considered to decrease secondary cancer probabilities and side effects due to radiation therapy and to minimize unnecessary dose for the patients.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.53-60
• /
• 2010

Purpose: We try to calculate EDW-factor easily with the formula applies essential data of EDW-factor and evaluate the validity through a measurement. Materials and Methods: We used the given value of GSTT (Golden Segmented Treatment Table) for the calculation of the EDW-factor. As to the experimental device, 0.6 cc farmer-type ion-chamber, an electrometer and water- phantom were used. A measurement was made at the maximum dose depth of the photon beam energy 6 MV and 15 MV under the condition that SSD (Source to Surface Distance) was 100 cm. The angle of the EDW (Enhanced Dynamic Wedge) which we use in an experiment was 60 degree, 30 degree, 20 degree in the Y1-OUT direction. We used Eclipse planning system (Varian, USA) as RTP system and the EDW-factor was calculated about all fields and EDW direction. In order to show the EDW-factor feature, a measurement was made at the selected field that verify the influence of the dependability about X, Y jaw and off-axis field. Results: When we change the Y1 field, it influence on the EDW-Factor and measured value. But the error between measured values and calculated values was less than 1%. The experimental result indicated the tendency that the error of the result of calculation and measured value becomes smaller as the EDW angle become smaller whether the calculation point (measurement point) and iso-center are same or not. The influence of the field size and energy did not show up. We simulated with the same condition using the RTP system. And we found that it makes no difference between the MU which is calculated manually by applying the EDW-Factor obtained from the commercial program and the value which is calculated by using RTP system. Conclusion: We excluded fitting value from well-known EDW-Factor formula and calculated EDW-factor with the formula applies essential data of EDW-factor only. As a result, there are no significant difference between the measured value and calculated value and it showed errors less than 1%. Also, we implemented the commercial program to calculate EDW-Factor conveniently without measure a factor on each field.