• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.109-120
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was first to analyze the utilization of dental examination through questionnaire to develop a diagnostic reference level of patient doses for dental radiography in korea. 77 dental institutions were classified into three groups: A group for the dental hospitals of the college of dentistry (11 institutions), B group for dental hospitals (30 institutions) and C group for dental clinics (36 institutions). The results were as follows : The mean numbers of unit chairs and medical staffs were 140.2, 15.3 and 5.8 sets, 112.6, 7.3 and 1.7 dentists, 3.1, 0.5 and no one radiologic technologists, and 19.7, 12.5 and 3.3 dental hygienists in A, B and C groups, respectively. The mean numbers of dental X-ray equipments were 14.64, 3.21 and 2.19 in A, B and C groups, respectively. Intraoral dental X-ray unit was used the most, the following equipments were panoramic, cephalometric, and cone-beam CT units. The most used X-ray imaging system was also digital system (above 50%) in all three groups. Insight dental film (Kodak, USA) having high sensitivity was routinely used for periapical radiography. The automatic processor was not used in many dental institutions, but the film-holding device was used in many dental institutions. The utilization rates of PACS in A, B and C groups were 90.9%, 83.3% and 16.7% respectively, and the PACS software program was used the most PiView STAR (Infinitt, Korea). The annual mean number of radiographic cases in one dental institution in 2008 for A group was 6.8 times and 21.2 times more than those for B and C groups, and periapical and panoramic radiographs were taken mostly. Tube voltage (kVp) and tube current (mA) for periapical radiography were similar in all three groups, but exposure time in C group was 12.0 times and 3.5 times longer than those in B and C groups. The amount of radiation exposure in C group, in which dental hygienists take dental radiographs, was more than those in other groups. The exposure parameters for panoramic radiography were similar in all three groups. In conclusion, the exposure parameters in dental radiography should be determined with reference level, not past experiences. Use of automatic processor and film-holding devices reduces the radiation exposure in film system. The quality assurance of dental equipments are necessary for the reduction of the patient dose and the improvement of X-ray image quality.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.195-203
• /
• 2008

Purpose: To investigate the treatment outcome and failure patterns after definitive chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced, unresectable esophageal cancer. Materials and Methods: From February 1994 to December 2002, 168 patients with locally advanced unresectable or medically inoperable esophageal cancer were treated by definitive chemoradiation therapy. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) ($42{\sim}46\;Gy$) was delivered to the region encompassing the primary tumor and involved lymph nodes, while the supraclavicular fossa and celiac area were included in the treatment area as a function of disease location. The administered cone-down radiation dose to the gross tumor went up to $54{\sim}66\;Gy$, while the fraction size of the EBRT was 1.8-2.0 Gy/fraction qd or 1.2 Gy/fraction bid. An optional high dose rate (HDR) intraluminal brachytherapy (BT) boost was also administered (Ir-192, $9{\sim}12\;Gy/3{\sim}4\;fx$). Two cycles of concurrent FP chemotherapy (5-FU $1,000\;mg/m^2$/day, days $2{\sim}6$, $30{\sim}34$, cisplatin $60\;mg/m^2$/day, days 1, 29) were delivered during radiotherapy with the addition of two more cycles. Results: One hundred sixty patients were analyzable for this review [median follow-up time: 10 months (range $1{\sim}149$ months)). The number of patients within AJCC stages I, II, III, and IV was 5 (3.1%), 38 (23.8%), 68 (42.5%), and 49 (30.6%), respectively. A HDR intraluminal BT was performed in 26 patients. The 160 patients had a median EBRT radiation dose of 59.4 Gy (range $44.4{\sim}66$) and a total radiation dose, including BT, of 60 Gy (range $44.4{\sim}72$), while 144 patients received a dose higher than 40 Gy. Despite the treatment, the disease recurrence rate was 101/160 (63.1%). Of these, the patterns of recurrence were local in 20 patients (12.5%), persistent disease and local progression in 61 (38.1%), distant metastasis in 15 (9.4%), and concomitant local and distant failure in 5 (3.1%). The overall survival rate was 31.8% at 2 years and 14.2% at 5 years (median 11.1 months). Disease-free survival was 29.0% at 2 years and 22.7% at 5 years (median 10.4 months). The response to treatment and N-stage were significant factors affecting overall survival. In addition, total radiation dose (${\geq}50\;Gy$ vs. < 50 Gy), BT and fractionation scheme (qd. vs. bid.) were not significant factors for overall survival and disease-free survival. Conclusion: Survival outcome after definitive chemoradiation therapy in unresectable esophageal cancer was comparable to those of other series. The main failure pattern was local recurrence. Survival rate did not improve with increased radiation dose over 50 Gy or the use of brachytherapy or hyperfractionation.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose is to clarify the effect of additional scattering ratio on the edge of the block according to the increasing block thickness with low melting point lead alloy and pure lead in electron beam therapy. Methods and materials: $10{\times}10cm^2$ Shielding blocks made of low melting point lead alloy and pure lead were fabricated to shield mold frame half of applicator. Block thickness was 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 (mm) for each material. The common irradiation conditions were set at 6 MeV energy, 300 MU / Min dose rate, gantry angle of $0^{\circ}$, and dose of 100 MU. The relative scattering ratio with increasing block thickness was measured with a parallel plate type ion chamber(Exradin P11) and phantom(RW3) by varying the position of the shielding block(cone and on the phantom), the position of the measuring point(surface ans depth of $D_{max}$), and the block material(lead alloy and pure lead). Results : When (depth of measurement / block position / block material) was (surface / applicator / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.33 nC(+0.33 %), 15.28 nC(0 %), 15.08 nC(-1.31 %), 15.05 nC(-1.51 %), 15.07 nC(-1.37 %) as the block thickness increased in order of 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 (mm) respectively. When it was (surface / applicator / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.19 nC(-0.59 %), 15.25 nC(-0.20 %), 15.15 nC(-0.85 %), 14.96 nC(-2.09 %), 15.15 nC(-0.85 %) respectively. When it was (surface / phantom / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.62 nC(+2.23 %), 15.59 nC(+2.03 %), 15.53 nC(+1.67 %), 15.48 nC(+1.31 %), 15.34 nC(+0.39 %) respectively. When it was (surface / phantom / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 15.56 nC(+1.83 %), 15.55 nC(+1.77 %), 15.51 nC(+1.51 %), 15.42 nC(+0.92 %), 15.39 nC(+0.72 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / applicator / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 16.70 nC(-10.87 %), 16.84 nC(-10.12 %), 16.72 nC(-10.78 %), 16.88 nC(-9.93 %), 16.90 nC(-9.82 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / applicator / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 16.83 nC(-10.19 %), 17.12 nC(-8.64 %), 16.89 nC(-9.87 %), 16.77 nC(-10.51 %), 16.52 nC(-11.85 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / phantom / pure lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 17.41 nC(-7.10 %), 17.45 nC(-6.88 %), 17.34 nC(-7.47 %), 17.42 nC(-7.04 %), 17.25 nC(-7.95 %) respectively. When it was (depth of $D_{max}$ / phantom / alloy lead), the relative value(scattering ratio) was 17.45 nC(-6.88 %), 17.44 nC(-6.94 %), 17.47 nC(-6.78 %), 17.43 nC(-6.99 %), 17.35 nC(-7.42 %) respectively. Conclusions: When performing electron therapy using a shielding block, the block position should be inserted applicator rather than the patient's body surface. The block thickness should be made to the minimum appropriate shielding thickness of each corresponding using energy. Also it is useful that the treatment should be performed considering the influence of scattering dose varying with distance from the edge of block.