• Journal of the Korean Society of Industry Convergence
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.195-199
• /
• 2008

The carbon fiber has low x-ray absorption property and high stiffness. This is the reason why many CT(Computed Tomography) manufacturer use carbon fiber in couch tabletop for CT scanner. In this paper, we design and make the couch tabletop made of carbon fiber composite, and verify the validity in CT scanner. In designing the couch tabletop, to determine the aluminum equivalent thickness of couch tabletop, we evaluate X-ray the transmissivity of aluminum and carbon plate in 80-120kVp X-ray energy range. And we perform structural analysis and mechanical design using determined thickness of carbon sheet. In conclusion, it was evaluated that manufactured couch tabletop satisfies X-ray transmissivity and mechanical requirements in CT scanner.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.45-55
• /
• 2005

Purpose : To evaluate the usefulness of the handmade patient immobilization device and to report the clinical results of it. Materials and methods : We made two fusion images and analyzed those images. One image is made with diagnostic MR image and CT image, the other with therapeutic planning MR image and CT image. With open head holder, we measured the skin dose and attenuation dose. Also, we made the planning CT couch plate with acrylic plate and styrofoam and compared artifact. Results : We could get more accurate fusion image when we use MR head holder(within 2mm error). The skin dose was reduced 2 times and the attenuation dose was reduced more than $20\%$ when open head holder used. The planning CT couch plate was more convenient than conventional board and reduced artifact remarkably. Conclusion : We could verify the localization point in the MR image which is taken with MR head holder. So we could fuse the image more accurately. The same method could be applied to PET and US image, if the alike immobilization device used. With open head holder, the skin dose and the attenuation dose was reduced. And those above devices could substitute for expensive foreign device, if those are manufactured adequately.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.337-344
• /
• 2000

Purpose :To design and test test CT simulator phantom for geometrical test. Materials and Methods : The PMMA phantom was designed as a cylinder which is 20 cm in diameter and 24 cm in length, along with a 25$\times25\times31cm^{3}$ rectangular parallelepiped. Radio-opaque wires of which diameter is 0.8 mm are attached on the other surface of the phantom as a spiral. The rectangular phantom was made of four 24$\times24\times0.5 cm^{3}$ square plates and each plate had a 24$\times24 cm^{2}$, 12$\times12cm^{2}$, 6$\times6 cm$^{2}$ square line. The squares were placed to face the cylinder at angles 0 $^{\circ}$ , 15 $^{\circ}$ , 30 $^{\circ}$ ,respectively. The rectangular phantom made it possible to measure the field size, couch angle, the collimator angle, the isocenter shift and the SSD, the measurements of the gantry angle from the cylindrical part. A virtual simulation software, AcOSim, offered various conditions to perform virtual simulations and these results were used to perform the geometrical Quality assurance of CT simulator. Results : A 0.3$\~$0.5 mm difference was found on the 24 cm field size which was created with the DRR measurements obtained by scanning of the rectangular phantom. The isocenter shift, the collimator rotation, the couch rotation, and the gantry rotation test showed 0.5$\~$1 mm, 0.5$\~$l$^{\circ}$ 0.5$\~$ 1$^{\circ}$ , and 0.5-1 $^{\circ}$ differences, respectively. We could not find any significant differences between the results from the two scanning methods. Conclusion :The geometrical test phantom developed in the study showed less than 1 mm (or 1 $^{\circ}$ ) differences. The phantom could be used as a routine geometrical QC/QA tools, since the differences are within clinically acceptable ranges.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2011

Purpose: Helical Tomotherapy allows only coplanar beam delivery because it does not allow couch rotation. We investigated a method to introduce non-coplanar beam by tilting a patient's head for Tomotherapy. The aim of this study was to compare intrafractional movement during Tomotherapy between coplanar and non-coplanar patient's setup. Materials and Methods: Helical Tomotherapy was used for treating eight patients with intracranial tumor. The subjects were divided into three groups: one group (coplanar) of 2 patients who lay on S-plate with supine position and wore thermoplastic mask for immobilizing the head, second group (non-coplanar) of 3 patients who lay on S-plate with supine position and whose head was tilted with Variable Axis Baseplate and wore thermoplastic mask, and third group (non-coplanar plus mouthpiece) of 3 patients whose head was tilted and wore a mouthpiece immobilization device and thermoplastic mask. The patients were treated with Tomotherapy after treatment planning with Tomotherapy Planning System. Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) was performed before and after treatment, and the intrafractional error was measured with lateral(X), longitudinal(Y), vertical(Z) direction movements and vector ($\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$) value for assessing overall movement. Results: Intrafractional error was compared among three groups by taking the error of MVCT taken after the treatment. As the correction values (X, Y, Z) between MVCT image taken after treatment and CT-simulation image are close to zero, the patient movement is small. When the mean values of movement of each direction for non-coplanar setup were compared with coplanar setup group, X-axis movement was decreased by 13%, but Y-axis and Z-axis movement were increased by 109% and 88%, respectively. Movements of Y-axis and Z-axis with non-coplanar setup were relatively greater than that of X-axis since a tilted head tended to slip down. The mean of X-axis movement of the group who used a mouthpiece was greater by 9.4% than the group who did not use, but the mean of Y-axis movement was lower by at least 64%, and the mean of Z-axis was lower by at least 67%, and the mean of Z-axis was lower by at least 67%, and the vector was lower by at least 59% with the use of a mouthpiece. Among these 8 patients, one patient whose tumor was located on left frontal lobe and left basal ganglia received reduced radiation dose of 38% in right eye, 23% in left eye, 30% in optic chiasm, 27% in brain stem, and 8% in normal brain with non-coplanar method. Conclusion: Tomotherapy only allows coplanar delivery of IMRT treatment. To complement this shortcoming, Tomotherapy can be used with non-coplanar method by artificially tilting the patient's head and using an oral immobilization instrument to minimize the movement of patient, when intracranial tumor locates near critical organs or has to be treated with high dose radiation.