• 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.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.327-335
• /
• 2013

This study investigates the case of clinical application for TomoDirect 3D-CRT(TD-3D) and TomoHelical 3D-CRT(TH-3D) with evaluating dose distribution for clinical application in each case. Treatment plans were created for 8 patients who had 3 dimensional conformal radiation therapy using TD-3D and TH-3D mode. Each patients were treated for sarcoma, CSI(craniospinal irradiaion), breast, brain, pancreas, spine metastasis, SVC syndrome and esophagus. DVH(dose volume histogram) and isodose curve were used for comparison of each treatment modality. TD-3D shows better dose distribution over the irradiation field without junction effect because TD-3D was not influenced by target length for sarcoma and CSI case. In breast case, dosimetric results of CTV, the average value of D 99%, D 95% were $49.2{\pm}0.4$ Gy, $49.9{\pm}0.4$ Gy and V 105%, V 110% were 0%, respectively. TH-3D with the dosimetric block decreased dose of normal organ in brain, pancreas, spine metastasis case. SCV syndrome also effectively decreased dose of normal organ by using dose block to the critical organs(spinal cord <38 Gy). TH-3D combined with other treatment modalities was possible to boost irradiation and was total dose was reduced to spinal cord in esophagus case(spinal cord <45 Gy, lung V 20 <20%). 3D-CRT using Tomotherapy could overcomes some dosimetric limitations, when we faced Conventional Linac based CRT and shows clinically proper dose distribution. In conclusion, 3D-CRT using Tomotherapy will be one of the effective 3D-CRT techniques.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.298-303
• /
• 2010

The aim of this study was to compare the dose distribution of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with 3 dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) in prostate cancer. The IMRT plan and the 3DCRT plan used the 9 fields technique, respectively. In IMRT, tumor dose was a total dose of 66 Gy at 2.0 Gy per day, 5 days a week for 5 weeks. All cases were following the dose volume histogram (DVH) constraints. The maximum and minimum tumor dose constraints were 6,700 cGy and 6,500 cGy, respectively. The rectum dose constraints were <35% over 50 Gy. The bladder dose constraints were <35% over 40 Gy. The femur head dose constraints were <15% over 20 Gy. Tumor dose in the 3DCRT were 66 Gy. In IMRT, the maximum dose of PTV was 104.4% and minimum dose was 89.5% for given dose. In 3DCRT, the maximum dose of PTV was 105.3% and minimum dose was 85.5% for given dose. The rectum dose was 34.0% over 50 Gy in IMRT compared with 63.3% in 3DCRT. The bladder dose was 30.1% over 40 Gy in IMRT compared with 30.6% in 3DCRT. The right femur head dose was 9.5% over 20 Gy in IMRT compared with 17.5% in 3DCRT. The left femur head dose was 10.6% over 20 Gy in IMRT compared with 18.3% in 3 DCRT. The dose of critical organs (rectum, bladder, and femur head) in IMRT showed to reduce than dose of 3DCRT. The rectum dose over 50 Gy in IMRT was reduced 29.3% than 3DCRT. The bladder dose over 40 Gy in IMRT was similar to 3DCRT. The femur head dose over 20 Gy in IMRT was reduced about 7~8% than 3DCRT.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.81-90
• /
• 2012

The effect of setup uncertainties on CTV dose and the correlation between setup uncertainties and setup margin were evaluated by Monte Carlo based numerical simulation. Patient specific information of IMRT treatment plan for rectal cancer designed on the VARIAN Eclipse planning system was utilized for the Monte Carlo simulation program including the planned dose distribution and tumor volume information of a rectal cancer patient. The simulation program was developed for the purpose of the study on Linux environment using open source packages, GNU C++ and ROOT data analysis framework. All misalignments of patient setup were assumed to follow the central limit theorem. Thus systematic and random errors were generated according to the gaussian statistics with a given standard deviation as simulation input parameter. After the setup error simulations, the change of dose in CTV volume was analyzed with the simulation result. In order to verify the conventional margin recipe, the correlation between setup error and setup margin was compared with the margin formula developed on three dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The simulation was performed total 2,000 times for each simulation input of systematic and random errors independently. The size of standard deviation for generating patient setup errors was changed from 1 mm to 10 mm with 1 mm step. In case for the systematic error the minimum dose on CTV $D_{min}^{stat{\cdot}}$ was decreased from 100.4 to 72.50% and the mean dose $\bar{D}_{syst{\cdot}}$ was decreased from 100.45% to 97.88%. However the standard deviation of dose distribution in CTV volume was increased from 0.02% to 3.33%. The effect of random error gave the same result of a reduction of mean and minimum dose to CTV volume. It was found that the minimum dose on CTV volume $D_{min}^{rand{\cdot}}$ was reduced from 100.45% to 94.80% and the mean dose to CTV $\bar{D}_{rand{\cdot}}$ was decreased from 100.46% to 97.87%. Like systematic error, the standard deviation of CTV dose ${\Delta}D_{rand}$ was increased from 0.01% to 0.63%. After calculating a size of margin for each systematic and random error the "population ratio" was introduced and applied to verify margin recipe. It was found that the conventional margin formula satisfy margin object on IMRT treatment for rectal cancer. It is considered that the developed Monte-carlo based simulation program might be useful to study for patient setup error and dose coverage in CTV volume due to variations of margin size and setup error.