• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.45-53
• /
• 2008

Purpose: We are trying to analyze 130 patients' conditions by using our Helical Tomotherapy, which was installed in our center in Oct. 2007. We will be statistically approach this examination and analyze so that we will be able to figure out adaptive plans according to the change in place of the tumor, GTV (gross tumor volume), total amount of time it took, vector (${\upsilon}=\surd$x2+y2+z2) and the change in size of the tumor. Materials and Methods: Objectives were the patients who were medicated with Tomotherapy in our medical center since Oct. 2007 August 2008. The Average age of the patients were 53 years old (Minimum 25 years old, Maximum 83 years old). The parts of the body we operated were could be categorized as Head&neck (n=22), Chest (n=47), Abdomen (n=25), Pelvis (n=11), Bone (n=25). MVCT had acted on 2702 times, and also had acted on our adaptive plan toward patients who showed big difference in the size of tumor. Also, after equalizing our gained MVCT and kv-CT we checked up on the range of possible mistake, using x, y, z, roll and vector. We've also investigated on Set-up, MVCT, average time of operation and target volume. Results: Mean time on table was 22.8 minutes. Mean treatment time was 13.26 minutes. Mean correction (mm) was X=-0.7, Y=-1.4, Z=5.77, roll=0.29, vector=8.66 Head&neck patients had 2.96 mm less vector value in movement than patients of Chest, Abdomen, Bone. In increasing order, Head&neck, Bone, Abdomen, Chest, Pelvis showed the vector value in movement. Also, there were 27 patients for adaptive plan, 39 patients, who had long or multiple tumor. We could know that When medical treatment is one cure plan, it takes 32 minutes, and when medical treatment is two cure plan, it takes 40 minutes that one medical treatment takes 21 minutes, and the other medical treatment takes 19 minutes. Conclusion:With our basic tools, we could bring more accurate IMRT with MVCT. Also, through our daily image, we checked up on the change in tumor so that adaptive plan could work. It was made it possible to take the cure of long or multiple tumor, the cure in a nearby OAR, and the complicated cure that should make changes of gradient dose distribution.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.271-277
• /
• 2013

In prostate IMRT planning, the planning target volume (PTV), extended from a clinical target volume (CTV), often contains an overlap air volume from the rectum, which poses a problem inoptimization and prescription. This study was aimed to establish a planning method for such a case. There can be three options in which volume should be considered the target during optimization process; PTV including the air volume of air density ('airOpt'), PTV including the air volume of density value one, mimicking the tissue material ('density1Opt'), and PTV excluding the air volume ('noAirOpt'). Using 10 MV photon beams, seven field IMRT plans for each target were created with the same parameter condition. For these three cases, DVHs for the PTV, bladder and the rectum were compared. Also, the dose coverage for the CTV and the shifted CTV were evaluated in which the shifted CTV was a copied and translated virtual CTV toward the rectum inside the PTV, thus occupying the initial position of the overlap air volume, simulating the worst condition for the dose coverage in the target. Among the three options, only density1Opt plan gave clinically acceptable result in terms of target coverage and maximum dose. The airOpt plan gave exceedingly higher dose and excessive dose coverage for the target volume whereas noAirOpt plan gave underdose for the shifted CTV. Therefore, for prostate IMRT plan, having an air region in the PTV, density modification of the included air to the value of one, is suggested, prior to optimization and prescription for the PTV. This idea can be equally applied to any cases including the head and neck cancer with the PTV having the overlapped air region. Further study is being under process.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.59-66
• /
• 2011

Purpose: Investigation of the clinical use of tangential fields technique using TOMO direct in comparison to conventional LINAC based radiation therapy after breast partial mastectomy. Materials and Methods: Treatment plans were created for 3 left-sided breast cancer patients who had radiation therapy after breast partial mastectomy by using wedged tangential fields technique, field in field technique (FIF), TOMO Direct, TOMO Direct intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) under the normalized prescription condition ($D_{90%}$: 50.4 Gy/28 fx within CTV). Dose volume histogram (DVH) and isodose curve were used to evaluate the dose to the clinical target volume (CTV), organ at risk (OAR). We compared and analyzed dosimetric parameters of CTV and OAR. Dosimetric parameters of CTV are $D_{99}$, $D_{95}$, Dose homogeneity index (DHI: $D_{10}/D_{90}$) and $V_{105}$, $V_{110}$. And dosimetric parameters of OAR are $V_{10}$, $V_{20}$, $V_{30}$, $V_{40}$ of the heart and $V_{10}$, $V_{20}$, $V_{30}$ of left lung. Results: Dosimetric results of CTV, the average value of $D_{99}$, $D_{95}$ were $47.7{\pm}1.1Gy$, $49.4{\pm}0.1Gy$ from wedged tangential fields technique (W) and FIF (F) were $47.1{\pm}0.6Gy$, $49.2{\pm}0.4Gy$. And it was $49.2{\pm}0.4$ vs. $48.6{\pm}0.8Gy$, $49.9{\pm}0.4$ vs. $49.5{\pm}0.3Gy$ Gy for the TOMO Direct (D) and TOMO Direct IMRT (I). The average value of dose homogeneity index was W: $1.1{\pm}0.02$, F: $1.07{\pm}0.02$, D: $1.03{\pm}0.001$, I: $1.05{\pm}0.02$. When we compared the average value of $V_{105}$, $V_{110}$ using each technique, it was the highest as $34.6{\pm}9.3%$, $7.5{\pm}7.9%$ for wedged tangential fields technique and the value dropped for FIF as $16.5{\pm}14.8%$, $2.1{\pm}3.5%$, TOMO direct IMRT as $7.5{\pm}8.3%$, $0.1{\pm}0.1%$ and the TOMO direct showed the lowest values for both as 0%. Dosimetric results of OAR was no significant difference among each technique. Conclusion: TOMO direct provides improved target dose homogeneity over wedged tangential field technique. It is no increase the amount of normal tissue volumes receiving low doses, as oppose to IMRT or Helical TOMO IMRT. Also, it simply performs treatment plan procedure than FIF. TOMO Direct is a clinical useful technique for breast cancer patients after partial mastectomy.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.89-94
• /
• 2008

TomoTherapy has a merit to treat cancer with Intensity modulated radiation and combines precise 3-D imaging from computerized tomography (CT scanning) with highly targeted radiation beams and rotating beamlets. In this paper, we comparing the dose distribution between TomoTherapy and linear accelerator based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for 10 Head & Neck patients using TomoTherapy which is newly installed and operated at National Cancer Center since Sept. 2006. Furthermore, we estimate how the homogeneity and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) are changed by motion of target. Inverse planning was carried out using CadPlan planning system (CadPlan R.6.4.7, Varian Medical System Inc. 3100 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1129, USA). For each patient, an inverse IMRT plan was also made using TomoTherapy Hi-Art System (Hi-Art2_2_4 2.2.4.15, TomoTherapy Incorporated, 1240 Deming Way, Madson, WI 53717-1954, USA) and using the same targets and optimization goals. All TomoTherapy plans compared favorably with the IMRT plans regarding sparing of the organs at risk and keeping an equivalent target dose homogeneity. Our results suggest that TomoTherapy is able to reduce the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) further, keeping a similar target dose homogeneity.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.113-122
• /
• 2007

Purpose: We proposed the method using dose-volume Histogram index to compare prospective plan trials in tomotherapy planning optimization. Materials and Methods: For 3 patients in cranial region, thorax and abdominal region, we acquired computed tomography images with PQ 5000 in each case. Then we delineated target structure and normal organ contour with pinnacle Ver 7.6c, after transferred each data to tomotherapy planning system (hi-art system Ver 2.0), we optimized 3 plan trials in each case that used differ from beam width, pitch, importance. We analyzed 3 plan trials in each region with isodose distribution, dose-volume histogram and dose statistics. Also we verified 3 plan trials with specialized DVH-indexes that is dose homogeneity index in target organ, conformity index around target structure and dose gradient index in non-target structures. Results: We compared with the similarity of results that the one is decide the best plan trial using isodose distribution, dose volume histogram and dose statistics, and the another is using DVH-indexes. They all decided the same plan trial to better result in each case. Conclusion: In some of case, it was appeared a little difference of results that used to DVH-index for comparison of plan trial in tomotherapy by special goal in it. But because DVH-index represented both dose distribution in target structure and high dose risk about normal tissue, it will be reasonable method for comparison of many plan trials before the tomotherapy treatments.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2003

In the radiation treatment planning (RTP) process, especially for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), knowing the exact volume and shape and the precise position of a lesion is very important. Sometimes X-ray projection images, such as angiograms, become the best choice for lesion identification. However, while the exact target position can be acquired by bi-projection images, 3D target reconstruction from bi-projection images is considered to be impossible. The aim of this study was to reconstruct the 3D target volume from multiple projection images. It was assumed that we knew the exact target position in advance, and all processes were performed in Target Coordinates, where the origin was the center of the target. We used six projections: two projections were used to make a Reconstruction Box and four projections were for image acquisition. The Reconstruction Box was made up of voxels of 3D matrices. Projection images were transformed into 3D in this virtual box using a geometric back-projection method. The resolution and the accuracy of the reconstructed target volume were dependent on the target size. An algorithm was applied to an ellipsoid model and a horseshoe-shaped model. Projection images were created geometrically using C program language, and reconstruction was also performed using C program language and Matlab ver. 6(The Mathwork Inc., USA). For the ellipsoid model, the reconstructed volume was slightly overestimated, but the target shape and position proved to be correct. For the horseshoe-shaped model, reconstructed volume was somewhat different from the original target model, but there was a considerable improvement in determining the target volume.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.145-153
• /
• 2013

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to treat spinal metastases. To achieve the highest steep dose gradients and conformal dose distributions of target tumors, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques are essential to spine radiosurgery. The purpose of the study was to qualitatively compare IMRT and VMAT techniques with International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC) contoured consensus guidelines for target volume definition. Planning target volume (PTV) was categorized as TB, $T_{BPT}$ and $T_{ST}$ depending on sectors involved; $T_B$ (vertebral body only), $T_{BPT}$ (vertebral body+pedicle+transverse process), and $T_{ST}$ (spinous process+transverse process). Three patients treated for spinal tumor in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar region were selected. Eacg tumor was contoured by the definition from the ISRC guideline. Maximum spinal cord dose were 12.46 Gy, 12.17 Gy and 11.36 Gy for $T_B$, $T_{BPT}$ and $T_{ST}$ sites, and 11.81 Gy, 12.19 Gy and 11.99 Gy for the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 techniques, respectively. Average fall-off dose distance from 90% to 50% isodose line for $T_B$, $T_{BPT}$, and $T_{ST}$ sites were 3.5 mm, 3.3 mm and 3.9 mm and 3.7 mm, 3.7 mm and 3.3 mm for the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 techniques, respectively. For the most complicated target $T_{BPT}$ sites in the cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions, the conformity index of the IMRT, RA1 and RA2 is 0.621, 0.761 and 0.817 and 0.755, 0.796 and 0.824 for rDHI. Both IMRT and VMAT techniques delivered high conformal dose distributions in spine stereotactic radiosurgery. However, if the target volume includes the vertebral body, pedicle, and transverse process, IMRT planning resulted in insufficient conformity index, compared to VMAT planning. Nevertheless, IMRT technique was more effective in reducing the maximum spinal cord dose compared to RA1 and RA2 techniques at most sites.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.237-246
• /
• 2004

Purpose: To investigate the effects of radiation dose-escalation on the treatment outcome, complications and the other prognostic variables for glioblastoma patients treated with 3D-conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: Between Jan 1997 and July 2002, a total of 75 patients with histologically proven diagnosis of glioblastoma were analyzed. The patients who had a Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) of 60 or higher, and received at least 50 Gy of radiation to the tumor bed were eligible. All the patients were divided into two arms; Arm 1, the high-dose group was enrolled prospectively, and Arm 2, the low-dose group served as a retrospective control. Arm 1 patients received $63\~70$ Gy (Median 66 Gy, fraction size $1.8\~2$ Gy) with 3D-conformal radiotherapy, and Arm 2 received 59.4 Gy or less (Median 59.4 Gy, fraction size 1.8 Gy) with 2D-conventional radiotherapy. The Gross Tumor Volume (GTV) was defined by the surgical margin and the residual gross tumor on a contrast enhanced MRI. Surrounding edema was not included in the Clinical Target Volume (CTV) in Arm 1, so as to reduce the risk of late radiation associated complications; whereas as in Arm 2 it was included. The overall survival and progression free survival times were calculated from the date of surgery using the Kaplan-Meier method. The time to progression was measured with serial neurologic examinations and MRI or CT scans after RT completion. Acute and late toxicities were evaluated using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group neurotoxicity scores. Results: During the relatively short follow up period of 14 months, the median overall survival and progression free survival times were $15{\pm}1.65$ and $11{\pm}0.95$ months, respectively. The was a significantly longer survival time for the Arm 1 patients compared to those in Arm 2 (p=0.028). For Arm 1 patients, the median survival and progression free survival times were $21{\pm}5.03$ and $12{\pm}1.59$ months, respectively, while for Arm 2 patients they were $14{\pm}0.94$ and $10{\pm}1.63$ months, respectively. Especially in terms of the 2-year survival rate, the high-dose group showed a much better survival time than the low-dose group; $44.7\%$ versus $19.2\%$. Upon univariate analyses, age, performance status, location of tumor, extent of surgery, tumor volume and radiation dose group were significant factors for survival. Multivariate analyses confirmed that the impact of radiation dose on survival was independent of age, performance status, extent of surgery and target volume. During the follow-up period, complications related directly with radiation, such as radionecrosis, has not been identified. Conclusion: Using 3D-conformal radiotherapy, which is able to reduce the radiation dose to normal tissues compared to 2D-conventional treatment, up to 70 Gy of radiation could be delivered to the GTV without significant toxicity. As an approach to intensify local treatment, the radiation dose escalation through 3D-CRT can be expected to increase the overall and progression free survival times for patients with glioblastomas.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.176-184
• /
• 2014

In this study, we compared dose distributions from simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) method versus the RTOG 0631 protocol for spine radiosurgery. Spine radiosurgery plans were performed in five patients with localized spinal metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma. The computed tomography (CT) and T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were fused for delineating of GTV and spinal cord. In SIB plan, the clinical target volume (CTV1) was included the whole compartments of the involved spine, while RTOG 0631 protocol defines the CTV2 as the involved vertebral body and both left and right pedicles. The CTV2 includes transverse process and posterior element according to the extent of GTV. The doses were prescribed 18 Gy to GTV and 10 Gy to CTV1 in SIB plan, while the prescription of RTOG 0631 protocol was applied 18 Gy to CTV2. The results of dose-volume histogram (DVH) showed that there were competitive in target coverage, while the doses of spinal cord and other normal organs were lower in SIB method than in RTOG 0631 protocol. The 85% irradiated volume of VB in RTOG 0631 protocol was similar to that in the SIB plan. However, the dose to normal organs in RTOG 0631 had a tendency to higher than that in SIB plan. The SIB plan might be an alternative method in case of predictive serious complications of surrounded normal organs. In conclusion, although both approaches of SIB or RTOG 0631 showed competitive planning results, tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) through diverse clinical researches should be analyzed in the future.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.255-263
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient specific quality assurance (QA) results of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) through the AAPM Task Group Report 119. Using the treatment planning system, both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were established. The absolute dose and relative dose for the target and OAR were measured by using an ion chamber and the bi-planar diode array, respectively. The plan evaluation was used by the Dose volume histogram (DVH) and the dose verification was implemented by compare the measured value with the calculated value. For the evaluation of plan, in case of prostate, both IMRT and VMAT were closed the goal of target and OARs. In case of H&N and Multi-target, IMRT was not reached the goal of target, but VMAT was reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(easy), both were reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(hard), both were reached the goal of target but not reached the goal of OARs. For the evaluation of absolute dose, in case of IMRT, the mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.24{\pm}2.06%$ and $1.4{\pm}2.9%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 3.65% and 4.39% for target and OAR, respectively. In case of VMAT the mean of relative error was $2.06{\pm}0.64%$ and $2.21{\pm}0.74%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 4.09% and 3.04% for target and OAR, respectively. For the evaluation of relative dose, in case of IMRT, the average percentage of passing gamma criteria (3mm/3%) were $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ and the confidence limits were 3.78%. In case of VMAT, the average percentage were $98.2{\pm}1.1%$ and the confidence limits were 3.95%. We performed IMRT and VMAT patient specific QA using TG-119 based procedure, all analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119. So, the IMRT and VMAT of our institution was confirmed the accuracy.