• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.77-84
• /
• 2012

Purpose: To develop a geometrical quality control real-time analysis program using an electronic portal imaging to replace film evaluation method. Materials and Methods: A geometrical quality control item was established with the Eclipse treatment planning system (Version 8.1, Varian, USA) after the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) took care of the problems occurring from the fixed substructure of the linear accelerator (CL-iX, Varian, USA). Electronic portal image (single exposure before plan) was created at the treatment room's 4DTC (Version 10.2, Varian, USA) and a beam was irradiated in accordance with each item. The gaining the entire electronic portal imaging at the Off-line review and was evaluated by a self-developed geometrical quality control real-time analysis program. As for evaluation methods, the intra-fraction error was analyzed by executing 5 times in a row under identical conditions and procedures on the same day, and in order to confirm the infer-fraction error, it was executed for 10 days under identical conditions of all procedures and was compared with the film evaluation method using an Iso-align$^{TM}$ quality control device. Measurement and analysis time was measured by sorting the time into from the device setup to data achievement and the time amount after the time until the completion of analysis and the convenience of the users and execution processes were compared. Results: The intra-fraction error values for each average 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.2 mm at light-radiation field coincidence, collimator rotation axis, couch rotation axis and gantry rotation axis. By checking the infer-fraction error through 10 days of continuous quality control, the error values obtained were average 1.7, 1.4, 0.7, 1.1 mm for each item. Also, the measurement times were average 36 minutes, 15 minutes for the film evaluation method and electronic portal imaging system, and the analysis times were average 30 minutes, 22 minutes. Conclusion: When conducting a geometrical quality control using an electronic portal imaging, it was found that it is efficient as a quality control tool. It not only reduces costs through not using films, but also reduces the measurement and analysis time which enhances user convenience and can improve the execution process by leaving out film developing procedures etc. Also, images done with evaluation from the self-developed geometrical quality control real-time analysis program, data processing is capable which supports the storage of information.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.53-60
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of a 3D printed phantom for in-vivo dosimetry of a prostate cancer patient. Materials and Methods : The phantom is produced to equally describe prostate and rectum based on a 3D volume contour of an actual prostate cancer patient who is treated in Asan Medical Center by using a 3D printer (3D EDISON+, Lokit, Korea). CT(Computed tomography) images of phantom are aquired by computed tomography (Lightspeed CT, GE, USA). By using treatment planning system (Eclipse version 10.0, Varian, USA), treatment planning is established after volume of a prostate cancer patient is compared with volume of the phantom. MOSFET(Metal OXIDE Silicon Field Effect Transistor) is estimated to identify precision and is located in 4 measuring points (bladder, prostate, rectal anterior wall and rectal posterior wall) to analyzed treatment planning and measured value. Results : Prostate volume and rectum volume of prostate cancer patient represent 30.61 cc and 51.19 cc respectively. In case of a phantom, prostate volume and rectum volume represent 31.12 cc and 53.52 cc respectively. A variation of volume between a prostate cancer patient and a phantom is less than 3%. Precision of MOSFET represents less than 3%. It indicates linearity and correlation coefficient indicates from 0.99 ~ 1.00 depending on dose variation. Each accuracy of bladder, prostate, rectal anterior wall and rectal posterior wall represent 1.4%, 2.6%, 3.7% and 1.5% respectively. In- vivo dosimetry represents entirely less than 5% considering precision of MOSFET. Conclusion : By using a 3D printer, possibility of phantom production based on prostate is verified precision within 3%. effectiveness of In-vivo dosimetry is confirmed from a phantom which is produced by a 3D printer. In-vivo dosimetry is evaluated entirely less than 5% considering precision of MOSFET. Therefore, This study is confirmed the usefulness of a 3D printed phantom for in-vivo dosimetry of a prostate cancer patient. It is necessary to additional phantom production by a 3D printer and In-vivo dosimetry for other organs of patient.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.53-60
• /
• 2010

Purpose: We try to calculate EDW-factor easily with the formula applies essential data of EDW-factor and evaluate the validity through a measurement. Materials and Methods: We used the given value of GSTT (Golden Segmented Treatment Table) for the calculation of the EDW-factor. As to the experimental device, 0.6 cc farmer-type ion-chamber, an electrometer and water- phantom were used. A measurement was made at the maximum dose depth of the photon beam energy 6 MV and 15 MV under the condition that SSD (Source to Surface Distance) was 100 cm. The angle of the EDW (Enhanced Dynamic Wedge) which we use in an experiment was 60 degree, 30 degree, 20 degree in the Y1-OUT direction. We used Eclipse planning system (Varian, USA) as RTP system and the EDW-factor was calculated about all fields and EDW direction. In order to show the EDW-factor feature, a measurement was made at the selected field that verify the influence of the dependability about X, Y jaw and off-axis field. Results: When we change the Y1 field, it influence on the EDW-Factor and measured value. But the error between measured values and calculated values was less than 1%. The experimental result indicated the tendency that the error of the result of calculation and measured value becomes smaller as the EDW angle become smaller whether the calculation point (measurement point) and iso-center are same or not. The influence of the field size and energy did not show up. We simulated with the same condition using the RTP system. And we found that it makes no difference between the MU which is calculated manually by applying the EDW-Factor obtained from the commercial program and the value which is calculated by using RTP system. Conclusion: We excluded fitting value from well-known EDW-Factor formula and calculated EDW-factor with the formula applies essential data of EDW-factor only. As a result, there are no significant difference between the measured value and calculated value and it showed errors less than 1%. Also, we implemented the commercial program to calculate EDW-Factor conveniently without measure a factor on each field.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2015

Purpose : The pre-treatment QA using Portal dosimetry for Volumetric Arc Therapy To analyze whether maintaining the reproducibility depending on various factors. Materials and Methods : Test was used for TrueBeam STx$^{TM}$ (Ver.1.5, Varian, USA). Varian Eclipse Treatment planning system(TPS) was used for planning with total of seven patients include head and neck cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and cervical cancer was established for a Portal dosimetry QA plan. In order to measure these plans, Portal Dosimetry application (Ver.10) (Varian) and Portal Vision aS1000 Imager was used. Each Points of QA was determined by dividing, before and after morning treatment, and the after afternoon treatment ended (after 4 hours). Calibration of EPID(Dark field correction, Flood field correction, Dose normalization) was implemented before Every QA measure points. MLC initialize was implemented after each QA points and QA was retried. Also before QA measurements, Beam Ouput at the each of QA points was measured using the Water Phantom and Ionization chamber(IBA dosimetry, Germany). Results : The mean values of the Gamma pass rate(GPR, 3%, 3mm) for every patients between morning, afternoon and evening was 97.3%, 96.1%, 95.4% and the patient's showing maximum difference was 95.7%, 94.2% 93.7%. The mean value of GPR before and after EPID calibration were 95.94%, 96.01%. The mean value of Beam Output were 100.45%, 100.46%, 100.59% at each QA points. The mean value of GPR before and after MLC initialization were 95.83%, 96.40%. Conclusion : Maintain the reproducibility of the Portal Dosimetry as a VMAT QA tool required management of the various factors that can affect the dosimetry.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.33-41
• /
• 2019

Purpose : To evaluate the effectiveness of Jaw-tracking(JT) technique in Intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) and Volumetric-modulated arc therapy(VMAT) for radiation therapy of esophageal cancer by analyzing volume dose of perimetrical normal organs along with the low-dose volume regions. Materials and Method: A total of 27 patients were selected who received radiation therapy for esophageal cancer with using $VitalBeam^{TM}$(Varian Medical System, U.S.A) in our hospital. Using Eclipse system(Ver. 13.6 Varian, U.S.A), radiation treatment planning was set up with Jaw-tracking technique(JT) and Non-Jaw-tracking technique(NJT), and was conducted for the patients with T-shaped Planning target volume(PTV), including Supraclavicular lymph nodes(SCL). PTV was classified into whether celiac area was included or not to identify the influence on the radiation field. To compare the treatment plans, Organ at risk(OAR) was defined to bilateral lung, heart, and spinal cord and evaluated for Conformity index(CI) and Homogeneity index(HI). Portal dosimetry was performed to verify a clinical application using Electronic portal imaging device(EPID) and Gamma analysis was performed with establishing thresholds of radiation field as a parameter, with various range of 0 %, 5 %, and 10 %. Results: All treatment plans were established on gamma pass rates of 95 % with 3 mm/3 % criteria. For a threshold of 10 %, both JT and NJT passed with rate of more than 95 % and both gamma passing rate decreased more than 1 % in IMRT as the low dose threshold decreased to 5 % and 0 %. For the case of JT in IMRT on PTV without celiac area, $V_5$ and $V_{10}$ of both lung showed a decrease by respectively 8.5 % and 5.3 % in average and up to 14.7 %. A $D_{mean}$ decreased by $72.3{\pm}51cGy$, while there was an increase in radiation dose reduction in PTV including celiac area. A $D_{mean}$ of heart decreased by $68.9{\pm}38.5cGy$ and that of spinal cord decreased by $39.7{\pm}30cGy$. For the case of JT in VMAT, $V_5$ decreased by 2.5 % in average in lungs, and also a little amount in heart and spinal cord. Radiation dose reduction of JT showed an increase when PTV includes celiac area in VMAT. Conclusion: In the radiation treatment planning for esophageal cancer, IMRT showed a significant decrease in $V_5$, and $V_{10}$ of both lungs when applying JT, and dose reduction was greater when the irradiated area in low-dose field is larger. Therefore, IMRT is more advantageous in applying JT than VMAT for radiation therapy of esophageal cancer and can protect the normal organs from MLC leakage and transmitted doses in low-dose field.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.66-72
• /
• 2018

The proper position of a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) is essential for the quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) dose delivery. Task Group (TG) 142 provides a quality assurance (QA) procedure for MLC position. Our study investigated the QA validation of the mechanical leaf gap measurement and the maintenance procedure. Two $VitalBeam^{TM}$ systems were evaluated to validate the acceptance of an MLC position. The dosimetric leaf gaps (DLGs) were measured for 6 MV, 6 MVFFF, 10 MV, and 15 MV photon beams. A solid water phantom was irradiated using $10{\times}10cm^2$ field size at source-to-surface distance (SSD) of 90 cm and depth of 10 cm. The portal dose image prediction (PDIP) calculation was implemented on a treatment planning system (TPS) called $Eclipse^{TM}$. A total of 20 VMAT plans were used to confirm the accuracy of dose distribution measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and those predicted by VMAT plans. The measured leaf gaps were 0.30 mm and 0.35 mm for VitalBeam 1 and 2, respectively. The DLG values decreased by an average of 6.9% and 5.9% after mechanical MLC adjustment. Although the passing rates increased slightly, by 1.5% (relative) and 1.2% (absolute) in arc 1, the average passing rates were still within the good dose delivery level (>95%). Our study shows the existence of a mechanical leaf gap error caused by a degenerated MLC motor. This can be recovered by reinitialization of MLC position on the machine control panel. Consequently, the QA procedure should be performed regularly to protect the MLC system.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the dose change according to the gas volume variations in the rectum, which was not included in the treatment plan during radiation therapy for cervical cancer. Materials and methods: Static Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (S-IMRT) using a 9-field and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) using 2 full-arcs were established with treatment planning system on Computed Tomography images of a human phantom. Random gas parameters were included in the Planning Target Volume(PTV) with a maximum change of 2.0 cm in increments of 0.5 cm. Then, the Conformity Index (CI), Homogeneity Index (HI) and PTV D_max for the target volume were calculated, and the minimum dose (D_min), mean dose (D_mean) and Maximum Dose (D_max) were calculated and compared for OAR(organs at risk). For statistical analysis, T-test was performed to obtain a p-value, where the significance level was set to 0.05. Result: The HI coefficients of determination(R²) of S-IMRT and VMAT were 0.9423 and 0.8223, respectively, indicating a relatively clear correlation, and PTV D_max was found to increase up to 2.8% as the volume of a given gas parameter increased. In case of OAR evaluation, the dose in the bladder did not change with gas volume while a significant dose difference of more than D_mean 700 cGy was confirmed in rectum using both treatment plans at gas volumes of 1.0 cm or more. In all values except for D_mean of bladder, p-value was less than 0.05, confirming a statistically significant difference. Conclusion: In the case of gas generation not considered in the reference treatment plan, as the amount of gas increased, the dose difference at PTV and the dose delivered to the rectum increased. Therefore, during radiation therapy, it is necessary to make efforts to minimize the dose transmission error caused by a large amount of gas volumes in the rectum. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate dose transmission by not only varying the gas volume but also where the gas was located in the treatment field.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.7-15
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate beam delivery accuracy for small sized lung SBRT through experiment. In order to assess the accuracy, Eclipse TPS(Treatment planning system) equipped Acuros XB and radiochromic film were used for the dose distribution. Comparing calculated and measured dose distribution, evaluated the margin for PTV(Planning target volume) in lung tissue. Materials and Methods : Acquiring CT images for Rando phantom, planned virtual target volume by size(diameter 2, 3, 4, 5 cm) in right lung. All plans were normalized to the target Volume=prescribed 95 % with 6MV FFF VMAT 2 Arc. To compare with calculated and measured dose distribution, film was inserted in rando phantom and irradiated in axial direction. The indexes of evaluation are percentage difference(%Diff) for absolute dose, RMSE(Root-mean-square-error) value for relative dose, coverage ratio and average dose in PTV. Results: The maximum difference at center point was -4.65 % in diameter 2 cm size. And the RMSE value between the calculated and measured off-axis dose distribution indicated that the measured dose distribution in diameter 2 cm was different from calculated and inaccurate compare to diameter 5 cm. In addition, Distance prescribed 95 % dose($D_{95}$) in diameter 2 cm was not covered in PTV and average dose value was lowest in all sizes. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that small sized PTV was not enough covered with prescribed dose in low density lung tissue. All indexes of experimental results in diameter 2 cm were much different from other sizes. It is showed that minimized PTV is not accurate and affects the results of radiation therapy. It is considered that extended margin at small PTV in low density lung tissue for enhancing target center dose is necessary and don't need to constraint Maximum dose in optimization.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.183-188
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The concern of improving the quality of life and reducing side effects related to cancer treatment has been a subject of interest in recent years with advances in cancer treatment techniques and increasing survival time. This study is an analysis of differing scattered dose to the contralateral breast using common different treatment techniques. Materials and Methods: Eclipse 10.0 (Varian, USA) based $30^{\circ}$ EDW (Enhanced dynamic wedge) plan, $15^{\circ}$ wedge plan, $30^{\circ}$ wedge plan, Open beam plan, FiF (field in field) plan were established using CT image of breast phantom which in our hospital. Each treatment plan were designed to exposure 400 cGy using CL-6EX (VARIAN, USA) and we measured scattered dose at 1 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 9 cm away from medial side of the phantom at 1 cm depth using ionization chamber (FC 65G, IBA). We carried out measurement by separating effect of medial tangential field and lateral tangential field and analyze. Results: The evaluation of scattered dose to contralateral breast, $30^{\circ}$ EDW plan, $15^{\circ}$ wedge plan, $30^{\circ}$ wedge plan, Open beam plan, FIF plan showed 6.55%, 4.72%, 2.79%, 2.33%, 1.87% about prescription dose of each treatment plan. The result of scattered dose measurement by separating effect of medial tangential field and lateral tangential field results were 4.94%, 3.33%, 1.55%, 1.17%, 0.77% about prescription dose at medial tangential field and 1.61%, 1.40%, 1.24%, 1.16%, 1.10% at lateral tangential field along with measured distance. Conclusion: In our experiment, FiF treatment technique generates minimum of scattered dose to contralateral breast which come from mainly phantom scatter factor. Whereas $30^{\circ}$ wedge plan generates maximum of scattered doses to contralateral breast and 3.3% of them was scattered from gantry head. The description of treatment planning system showed a loss of precision for a relatively low scatter dose region. Scattered dose out of Treatment radiation field is relatively lower than prescription dose but, in decision of radiation therapy, it cannot be ignored that doses to contralateral breast are related with probability of secondary cancer.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.128-138
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Segmental analysis of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is not clinically used for compositional error source evaluation. Instead, dose verification is routinely used for plan-specific quality assurance (QA). While this approach identifies the resultant error, it does not specify which machine parameter was responsible for the error. In this research study, we adopted an approach for the segmental analysis of VMAT as a part of machine QA of linear accelerator (LINAC). Methods: Two portal dose QA plans were generated for VMAT QA: a) for full arc and b) for the arc, which was segmented in 12 subsegments. We investigated the multileaf collimator (MLC) position and dosimetric accuracy in the full and segmented arc delivery schemes. A MATLAB program was used to calculate the MLC position error from the data in the dynalog file. The Gamma passing rate (GPR) and the measured to planned dose difference (DD) in each pixel of the electronic portal imaging device was the measurement for dosimetric accuracy. The eclipse treatment planning system and a MATLAB program were used to calculate the dosimetric accuracy. Results: The maximum root-mean-square error of the MLC positions were <1 mm. The GPR was within the range of 98%-99.7% and was similar in both types of VMAT delivery. In general, the DD was <5 calibration units in both full arcs. A similar DD distribution was found for continuous arc and segmented arcs sums. Exceedingly high DD were not observed in any of the arc segment delivery schemes. The LINAC performance was acceptable regarding the execution of the VMAT QA plan. Conclusions: The segmental analysis proposed in this study is expected to be useful for the prediction of the delivery of the VMAT in relation to the gantry angle. We thus recommend the use of segmental analysis of VMAT as part of the regular QA.