• Title/Summary/Keyword: 유방절선조사

Search Result 3, Processing Time 0.016 seconds

Evaluation of Contralateral Breast Surface Dose in FIF (Field In Field) Tangential Irradiation Technique for Patients Undergone Breast Conservative Surgery (보존적 유방절제 환자의 방사선치료 시 종속조사면 병합방법에 따른 반대편 유방의 표면선량평가)

  • Park, Byung-Moon;Bang, Dong-Wan;Bae, Yong-Ki;Lee, Jeong-Woo;Kim, You-Hyun
    • Journal of radiological science and technology
    • /
    • v.31 no.4
    • /
    • pp.401-406
    • /
    • 2008
  • The aim of this study is to evaluate contra-lateral breast (CLB) surface dose in Field-in-Field (FIF) technique for breast conserving surgery patients. For evaluation of surface dose in FIF technique, we have compared with other techniques, which were open fields (Open), metal wedge (MW), and enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) techniques under same geometrical condition and prescribed dose. The three dimensional treatment planning system was used for dose optimization. For the verification of dose calculation, measurements using MOSFET detectors with Anderson Rando phantom were performed. The measured points for four different techniques were at the depth of 0cm (epidermis) and 0.5cm bolus (dermis), and spacing toward 2cm, 4cm, 6cm, 8cm, 10cm apart from the edge of tangential medial beam. The dose calculations were done in 0.25cm grid resolution by modified Batho method for inhomogeneity correction. In the planning results, the surface doses were differentiated in the range of $19.6{\sim}36.9%$, $33.2{\sim}138.2%$ for MW, $1.0{\sim}7.9%$, $1.6{\sim}37.4%$ for EDW, and for FIF at the depth of epidermis and dermis as compared to Open respectively. In the measurements, the surface doses were differentiated in the range of $11.1{\sim}71%$, $22.9{\sim}161%$ for MW, $4.1{\sim}15.5%$, $8.2{\sim}37.9%$ for EDW, and 4.9% for FIF at the depth of epidermis and dermis as compared to Open respectively. The surface doses were considered as underestimating in the planning calculation as compared to the measurement with MOSFET detectors. Was concluded as the lowest one among the techniques, even if it was compared with Open method. Our conclusion could be stated that the FIF technique could make the optimum dose distribution in Breast target, while effectively reduce the probability of secondary carcinogenesis due to undesirable scattered radiation to contra-lateral breast.

  • PDF

Dobe Contamination by Tangential Irradiation of Breast Cancer (유방암의 방사선 절선조사에 의한 선량분포)

  • Lee Jong Gul;Lee Byung Jun;Lee Ho Soo;Lee Byung Je
    • The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
    • /
    • v.6 no.1
    • /
    • pp.67-70
    • /
    • 1994
  • The use of primary breast irraditation with advantage of improved cosmesis in breast cancer may be the potential risks of radiation for a change in the number of normal breast cancers and lung fibrosis. The magnitude of the scattered dose for a variety of radiation treatment techniques from patient of breast cancer and phantom was measured by adequate dosimeters. We can reduce the dose of the normal breast to treated with radiation by understanding the factors contributing to the unwanted dose and by determining ways to decrease this dose.

  • PDF

Verification of Non-Uniform Dose Distribution in Field-In-Field Technique for Breast Tangential Irradiation (유방암 절선조사 시 종속조사면 병합방법의 불균등한 선량분포 확인)

  • Park, Byung-Moon;Bae, Yong-Ki;Kang, Min-Young;Bang, Dong-Wan;Kim, Yon-Lae;Lee, Jeong-Woo
    • Journal of radiological science and technology
    • /
    • v.33 no.3
    • /
    • pp.277-282
    • /
    • 2010
  • The study is to verify non-uniform dose distribution in Field-In-Field (FIF) technique using two-dimensional ionization chamber (MatriXX, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany) for breast tangential irradiation. The MatriXX and an inverse planning system (Eclipse, ver 6.5, Varian, Palo Alto, USA) were used. Hybrid plans were made from the original twenty patients plans. To verify the non-uniform dose distribution in FIF technique, each portal prescribed doses (90 cGy) was delivered to the MatriXX. The measured doses on the MatriXX were compared to the planned doses. The quantitative analyses were done with a commercial analyzing tool (OmniPro IMRT, ver. 1.4, Wellhofer Dosimetrie, Germany). The delivered doses at the normalization points were different to average 1.6% between the calculated and the measured. In analysis of line profiles, there were some differences of 1.3-5.5% (Avg: 2.4%), 0.9-3.9% (Avg: 2.5%) in longitudinal and transverse planes respectively. For the gamma index (criteria: 3 mm, 3%) analyses, there were shown that 90.23-99.69% (avg: 95.11%, std: 2.81) for acceptable range ($\gamma$-index $\geq$ 1) through the twenty patients cases. In conclusion, through our study, we have confirmed the availability of the FIF technique by comparing the calculated with the measured using MatriXX. In the future, various clinical applications of the FIF techniques would be good trials for better treatment results.