• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.238-248
• /
• 2010

Purpose: To compare the dose distributions between three-dimensional (3D) and four-dimensional (4D) radiation treatment plans calculated by Ray-tracing or the Monte Carlo algorithm, and to highlight the difference of dose calculation between two algorithms for lung heterogeneity correction in lung cancers. Materials and Methods: Prospectively gated 4D CTs in seven patients were obtained with a Brilliance CT64-Channel scanner along with a respiratory bellows gating device. After 4D treatment planning with the Ray Tracing algorithm in Multiplan 3.5.1, a CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy planning system, 3D Ray Tracing, 3D and 4D Monte Carlo dose calculations were performed under the same beam conditions (same number, directions, monitor units of beams). The 3D plan was performed in a primary CT image setting corresponding to middle phase expiration (50%). Relative dose coverage, D95 of gross tumor volume and planning target volume, maximum doses of tumor, and the spinal cord were compared for each plan, taking into consideration the tumor location. Results: According to the Monte Carlo calculations, mean tumor volume coverage of the 4D plans was 4.4% higher than the 3D plans when tumors were located in the lower lobes of the lung, but were 4.6% lower when tumors were located in the upper lobes of the lung. Similarly, the D95 of 4D plans was 4.8% higher than 3D plans when tumors were located in the lower lobes of lung, but was 1.7% lower when tumors were located in the upper lobes of lung. This tendency was also observed at the maximum dose of the spinal cord. Lastly, a 30% reduction in the PTV volume coverage was observed for the Monte Carlo calculation compared with the Ray-tracing calculation. Conclusion: 3D and 4D robotic radiotherapy treatment plans for lung cancers were compared according to a dosimetric viewpoint for a tumor and the spinal cord. The difference of tumor dose distributions between 3D and 4D treatment plans was only significant when large tumor movement and deformation was suspected. Therefore, 4D treatment planning is only necessary for large tumor motion and deformation. However, a Monte Carlo calculation is always necessary, independent of tumor motion in the lung.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.31-42
• /
• 1990

The finding of long lived free radicals produced by ionizing radiation in organic crystals and the quantification of this effect by electron spin resonance(ESR) spactroscopy has proven excellent dosimetric applicability. The tissue equivalent alanine dosimeter also appear appropriate for radiation therapy level dosimetry. The dose measurement was performed in a Rando phantom using high energy photons as produced by high energy medical linear accelerator and cobalt-60 teletherapy unit. The absorbed dose range of the ESR/alanine dosimetry system could be extended down to 0.1 Gy. The response of the alanine dosimeters was determined for photons at different therapeutic dose levels from less than 0.1 Gy to 100 Gy and the depth dose measurements were carried out for photon energies of 1.25MeV, 6 and 10 MV with alanine dosimeters in Rando phantom. Comparisons between ESR/alanine in a Rando phantom and ion chamber in a water phantom were made performing depth dose measurements to examine the agreement of both methods under field conditions.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.208-214
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of low magnetic field on dose distribution in the partial-breast irradiation (PBI). Eleven patients with an invasive early-stage breast carcinoma were treated prospectively with PBI using 38.5 Gy delivered in 10 fractions using the $ViewRay^{(R)}$ system. For each of the treatment plans, dose distribution was calculated with magnetic field and without magnetic field, and the difference between dose and volume for each organ were evaluated. For planning target volume (PTV), the analysis included the point minimum ($D_{min}$), maximum, mean dose ($D_{mean}$) and volume receiving at least 90% ($V_{90%}$), 95% ($V_{95%}$) and 107% ($V_{107%}$) of the prescribed dose, respectively. For organs at risk (OARs), the ipsilateral lung was analyzed with $D_{mean}$ and the volume receiving 20 Gy ($V_{20\;Gy}$), and the contralateral lung was analyzed with only $D_{mean}$. The heart was analyzed with $D_{mean}$, $D_{max}$, and $V_{20\;Gy}$, and both inner and outer shells were analyzed with the point $D_{min}$, $D_{max}$ and $D_{mean}$, respectively. For PTV, the effect of low magnetic field on dose distribution showed a difference of up to 2% for volume change and 4 Gy for dose. In OARs analysis, the significant effect of the magnetic field was not observed. Despite small deviation values, the average difference of mean dose values showed significant difference (p<0.001), but there was no difference of point minimum dose values in both sehll structures. The largest deviation for the average difference of $D_{max}$ in the outer shell structure was $5.0{\pm}10.5Gy$ (p=0.148). The effect of low magnetic field of 0.35 T on dose deposition by a Co-60 beam was not significantly observed within the body for PBI IMRT plans. The dose deposition was only appreciable outside the body, where a dose build-up due to contaminated electrons generated in the treatment head and scattered electrons formed near the body surface.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2005.04a
• /
• pp.75-78
• /
• 2005

IMRT를 이용한 환자치료에서 환자의 특이적 품질관리에 대한 독립적인 선량계산을 위해 치료계획용 컴퓨터로 부터 계획된 다엽콜리메이터의 배열파일(MLC sequencing file)과 계획된 MU값 및 선량계산 위치에서의 각각의 조사필드 별 기여 치 등을 얻어낸 후 MS office Excel 2000 VBA를 이용하여 간단한 분석을 통하여 MU값을 계산한 결과 계획선량과 계산선량이 ${\pm}$4% 의 선량 오차를 얻을 수 있었다.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.237-244
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to compare method in the treatment of breast cancer using dose index. And, it is to find the optimized treatment technique to the patient. The phantom filled with tissue-equivalent material were used simulation and treatment as techniques of 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT was planned using Eclipse v10. By using HI(homogeneity index), CI(Conformity index), OED(Organ equivalent dose), EAR(Excess Absolute Risk), were assessed for each treatment plans. HI and CI of 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT were calculated 16.89, 11.21, 9.55 and 0.59, 0.61, 0.83. The organ average doses of Lt lung, Rt lung, liver, heart, esophagus, cord, Lt breast, trachea and stomach were 0.01 ~ 2.02 Gy, 0.36 ~ 5.01 Gy, 0.25 ~ 2.49 Gy, 0.14 ~ 6.92 Gy, 0.03 ~ 2.02 Gy, 0.01 ~ 1.06 Gy, 0.25 ~ 6.08 Gy, 0.08 ~ 0.59 Gy, 0.01 ~ 1.34 Gy, respectively. The OED, EAR of the IMRT and VMAT show higher than 3D-CRT. As the result of this study, we could confirm being higher dose index(HI, CI) in IMRT and VMAT than 3D-CRT, but doses of around normal organs was higher IMRT, VMAT than 3D-CRT.

• 대한방사선치료학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1998.06a
• /
• pp.14-15
• /
• 1998

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.227-245
• /
• 1998

A most appropriate model of 3-D conformal radiotherapy has been induced by clinical evaluation and animal study, and therapeutic gains were evaluated by numerical equation of tumor control probability(TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). The radiation dose to the tumor and the adjacent normal organs was accurately evaluated and compared using the dose volume histogram(DVH). The TCP and NTCP was derived from the distribution of given dosage and irradiated volume, and these numbers were used as the biological index for the assessment of the treatment effects. Ten patients with liver disease have been evaluated and 3 dogs were sacrificed for this study. Based on the 3-D images of the tumor and adjacent organs, the optimum radiation dose and the projection direction which could maximize the radiation effect while minimizing the effects to the adjacent organs could be decided. 3). The most effective collimation for the normal adjacent organs was made through the beams eye view with the use of multileaf collimator. When the dose was increased from 50Gy to 70Gy, the TCP for the conventional 2-port radiation and the 5-port multidimensional therapy was 0.982 and 0.995 respectively, while the NTCP was 0.725 and 0.142 respectively, suggesting that the 3-D conformal radiotherapy might be the appropriate therapy to apply sufficient radiation dose to the tumor while minimizing the damages to the normal areas of the liver. Positive correlation was observed between the NTCP and the actual complication of the normal liver in the animal study. The present study suggest that the use of 3-D conformal radiotherapy and the application of the mathematical models of TCP and NTCP may provide the improvements in the treatment of hepatoma with enhanced results.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.141-148
• /
• 1991

A since authors started IORT for stomach cancer patient on 198, we developed various sized, shaped IORT cones for better clinical application and homogeneous surface and depth dose distribution. Authors concluded as following. 1. The shaping block should be fixed on the tray, not under the tray for homogeneous dose distribution. 2. The straight cone was showed better dose distribution than divergence cone. 3. The acryl cone was superior than the stainless-steel cone. 4. The acryl cover fixed on the end for IORT cone not only improvement of surface dose, but also homogenity of depth dose.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.114-122
• /
• 2006

The two commonly used methods in delivering intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plan are the dynamic (sliding window) and static (stop and shoot) mode. In this study, the two IMRI delivery techniques are compared by measuring point dose and dose distributions. Using treatment planning system, clinical target volume (CTV) was created as a sphere with various diameter (3 cm, 7 cm, 12 cm). Two IMRT plans were peformed to deliver 200 cGy to the CTV in dynamic and static mode. The two plans were delivered on a phantom and central point dose and dose distributions were measured. The central point dose differences between static and dynamic IMRT delivery were 0.2%, 0.2% and 0.4% when the diameter of CTV was 3 cm, 7 cm, and 12 cm, respectively. The differences In volume receiving 90% of the proscribed dose were 2.7%, 2.2%, and 2.9% for the diameter of CTV was 3 cm, 7 cm, and 12 cm, respectively. For lung cancer patients, the differences in central point dose were 0.2%, 0.2%, and 0.4% when the volume of CTV was 35.5 cc, 296.8 cc, and 903.5 cc, respectively. The differences in volume receiving 90% of the prescribed dose were 2.7%, 4.8%, and 9.1% when the volume of CTV was 35.5 cc, 296.8 cc, and 903.5 cc, respectively. In conclusion, it was possible to deliver IMRT plans using dynamic mode of MLC operation although the loaves are In motion during radiation delivery.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.95-101
• /
• 1999

The aims of this report are to classify the incorrect data of patients and the errors of dose and dose distribution observed in QA activities on teleradiotherapy chart, and to analyze their frequency. In our department, radiation physicists check several sheets of patient chart to reduce numeric errors before starting radiation therapy and at least once a week, which include history, port diagram, MU calculation or treatment planning summary and daily treatment sheet. The observed errors are classified as followings. 1) Identity of patient, 2) Omitted or unrecorded history sheet even though not including the item related to dose, 3) Omission of port diagram, or omitted or erroneous data, 4) Erroneous calculation of MU and point dose, and important causes, 5) Loss of summary sheet of treatment planning, and erroneous data of patient in the sheet, 6) Erroneous record of radiation therapy, and errors of daily dose, port setup, MU and accumulated dose in the daily treatment sheet, 7) Errors leading inexact dose or dose distribution, errors not administerd even though its possibility, and simply recorded errors, 8) Omission of sign. Number of errors was counted rather than the number of patients. In radiotherapy chart QA from Jun 17, 1996 to Jul 31, 1999, no error of patient identity had been observed. 431 Errors in 399 patient charts had been observed and there were 405 physical errors, 9 cases of omitted or unrecorded history sheet, and 17 unsigned. There were 23 cases (5.7%) of omitted port diagram, 21 cases (5.2%) of omitted data and 73 cases (18.0 %) of erroneous data in port diagram, 13 cases (3.2 %) treated without MU calculation, 68 cases (16.3 %) of erroneous MU, 8 cases (2.0%) of erroneous point dose, 1 case (0.2 %) of omitted treatment planning summary, 11 cases (2.7%) of erroneous input of patient data, 13 cases (3.2%) of uncorrected record of treatment, 20 cases (4.9%) of discordant daily doses in MU calculation sheet and daily treatment sheet, 33 cases (8.1%) of erroneous setup, 52 cases (12.8%) of MU setting error, 61 cases (15.1%) of erroneous accumulated dose. Cases of error leading inexact dose or dose distribution were 239 (59.0 %), cases of error not administered even though its possibility were 142 (35.1 %), and cases of simply recorded error were 24 (5.9 %). The numeric errors observed in radiotherapy chart ranged over various items. Because errors observed can actually contribute to erroneous dose or dose distribution, or have the possibility to lead such errors, thorough QA activity in physical aspects of radiotherapy charts is required.