• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.1-5
• /
• 2006

Purpose: IMRT quality assurance(Q.A) is consist of the absolute dosimetry using ionization chamber and relative dosimetry using the film. We have in general used 0.015 cc ionization chamber, because small size and measure the point dose. But this ionization chamber is too small to give an accurate measurement value. In this study, we have examined the degree of calculated to measured dose difference in intensity modulated radiotherapy(IMRT) based on the observed/expected ratio using various kinds of ion chambers, which were used for absolute dosimetry. Materials and Methods: we peformed the 6 cases of IMRT sliding-window method for head and neck cases. Radiation was delivered by using a Clinac 21EX unit(Varian, USA) generating a 6 MV x-ray beam, which is equipped with an integrated multileaf collimator. The dose rate for IMRT treatment is set to 300 MU/min. The ion chamber was located 5cm below the surface of phantom giving 100cm as a source-axis distance(SAD). The various types of ion chambers were used including 0.015cc(pin point type 31014, PTW. Germany), 0.125 cc(micro type 31002, PTW, Germany) and 0.6 cc(famer type 30002, PTW, Germany). The measurement point was carefully chosen to be located at low-gradient area. Results: The experimental results show that the average differences between plan value and measured value are ${\pm}0.91%$ for 0.015 cc pin point chamber, ${\pm}0.52%$ for 0.125 cc micro type chamber and ${\pm}0.76%$ for farmer type 0.6cc chamber. The 0.125 cc micro type chamber is appropriate size for dose measure in IMRT. Conclusion: IMRT Q.A is the important procedure. Based on the various types of ion chamber measurements, we have demonstrated that the dose discrepancy between calculated dose distribution and measured dose distribution for IMRT plans is dependent on the size of ion chambers. The reason is small size ionization chamber have the high signal-to-noise ratio and big size ionization chamber is not located accurate measurement point. Therefore our results suggest the 0.125 cc farmer type chamber is appropriate size for dose measure in IMRT.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.87-95
• /
• 2015

Purpose : This study presents the usefulness assessment of secondary shield for the lens exposure dose reduction during radiation treatment of peripheral orbit. Materials and Methods : We accomplished IMRT treatment plan similar with a real one through the computed treatment planning system after CT simulation using human phantom. For the secondary shield, we used Pb plate (thickness 3mm, diameter 25mm) and 3 mm tungsten eye-shield block. And we compared lens dose using OSLD between on TPS and on simulation. Also, we irradiated 200 MU(6 MV, SPD(Source to Phantom Distance)=100 cm, $F{\cdot}S\;5{\times}5cm$) on a 5cm acrylic phantom using the secondary shielding material of same condition, 3mm Pb and tungsten eye-shield block. And we carried out the same experiment using 8cm Pb block to limit effect of leakage & transmitted radiation out of irradiation field. We attached OSLD with a 1cm away from the field at the side of phantom and applied a 3mm bolus equivalent to the thickness of eyelid. Results : Using human phantom, the Lens dose on IMRT treatment plan is 315.9cGy and the real measurement value is 216.7cGy. And after secondary shield using 3mm Pb plate and tungsten eye-shield block, each lens dose is 234.3, 224.1 cGy. The result of a experiment using acrylic phantom, each value is 5.24, 5.42 and 5.39 cGy in case of no block, 3mm Pb plate and tungsten eye-shield block. Applying O.S.B out of the field, each value is 1.79, 2.00 and 2.02 cGy in case of no block, 3mm Pb plate and tungsten eye-shield block. Conclusion : When secondary shielding material is used to protect critical organ while irradiating photon, high atomic number material (like metal) that is near by critical organ can be cause of dose increase according to treatment region and beam direction because head leakage and collimator & MLC transmitted radiation are exist even if it's out of the field. The attempt of secondary shield for the decrease of exposure dose was meaningful, but untested attempt can have a reverse effect. So, a preliminary inspection through Q.A must be necessary.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.135-144
• /
• 2010

Purpose: The purpose of this study is that through production of phantom for respiration gated radiotherapy, assessing appropriacy of exposure dose for the therapy using RPM (Real-time Position Management). Materials and Methods: We located measurement object on the phantom for respiration gated radiotherapy made of 2 linear actuator, acrylic panel, stanchion, iron plate ets. to drive (up, down, front, back). Using 4D CT scan, we analyzed patient's respiration and reproduced the movement by computer. On the phantom, we located a 2D-Array (PTW) and an White water phantom (4.5 cm) and used DMLC (interval 2 cm) in the field size $10{\times}10\;cm$, then exposed 21EX X-ray 100 MU, in the case of phantom was (1) static (2) moving (3) gated using RPM respectively gantry $0^{\circ}$ and $90^{\circ}$ We measured with a 0.125 CC ionization chamber (PTW) on the phantom (7.5 cm) in the same condition. Results: Ionization chamber: There were within 0.3% of error with gating respiration and approximately 2% of error without gating in the same condition. 2D-Array: Gantry $90^{\circ}$, field size $10{\times}10\;cm$, using DMLC. There were within 3% of error with gating respiration and approximately 16% of error without gating. Conclusion: The phantom for respiration gated radiotherapy makes plans considering patient's movement, quantitative analysis of exposure dose and proper assessment therapy for IMRT patients using RPM possible.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.171-178
• /
• 2016

Purpose : In order to minimize the dose of femoral head as an appropriate treatment plan for rectal cancer radiation therapy, we compare and evaluate the usefulness of 3-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 3fCRT), which is a universal treatment method, and 5-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 5fCRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of rectal cancer that treated with 21EX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). 3fCRT and 5fCRT plan has $0^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, $95^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$, $265^{\circ}$ gantry angle, respectively. VMAT plan parameters consisted of 15MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ 1 arac. Treatment prescription was employed delivering 54Gy to recum in 30 fractions. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, VMAT plans were optimized and calculated twice, and normalized to the target V100%=95%. The indexes of evaluation are D of Both femoral head and aceta fossa, total MU, H.I.(Homogeneity index) and C.I.(Conformity index) of the PTV. All VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : D of Rt. femoral head was 53.08 Gy, 50.27 Gy, and 30.92 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. D of Rt. aceta fossa was 54.86 Gy, 52.40 Gy, 30.37 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. The maximum dose of both femoral head and aceta fossa was higher in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. C.I. showed the lowest VMAT treatment plan with an average of 1.64, 1.48, and 0.99 in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. There was no significant difference on H.I. of the PTV among three plans. Total MU showed that the VMAT treatment plan used 124.4MU and 299MU more than the 3fCRT and 5fCRT treatment plan, respectively. IMRT verification gamma test results for the VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2mm/2%. Conclusion : In rectal cancer treatment, the VMAT plan was shown to be advantageous in most of the evaluation indexes compared to the 3D plan, and the dose of the femoral head was greatly reduced. However, because of practical limitations there may be a case where it is difficult to select a VMAT treatment plan. 5fCRT has the advantage of reducing the dose of the femoral head as compared to the existing 3fCRT, without regard to additional problems. Therefore, not only would it extend survival time but the quality of life in general, if hospitals improved radiation therapy efficiency by selecting the treatment plan in accordance with the hospital's situation.