• 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.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2006

Puroose: To present preliminary results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using the simultaneous modulated accelerated radiation therapy (SMART) boost technique in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Materials and Methods: Twenty patients who underwent IMRT for non-metastatic NPC at the Asan Medical Center between September 2001 and December 2003 were prospectively evaluated. IMRT was delivered using the 'step and shoot' SMART technique at prescribed doses of 72 Gy (2.4 Gy/day) to the gross tumor volume (GTV), 60 Gy (2 Gy/day) to the clinical target volume (CTV) and metastatic nodal station, and 46 Gy (2 Gy/day) to the clinically negative neck region. Eighteen patients also received concurrent chemotherapy using cisplatin once per week. Results: The median follow-up period was 27 months. Nineteen patients completed the treatment without interruption; the remaining patient interrupted treatment for 2 weeks owing to severe pharyngitis and malnutrition. Five patients (25%) had RTOG grade 3 mucositis, whereas nine (45%) had grade 3 pharyngitis. Seven patients (35%) lost more than 10% of their pretreatment weight, whereas 11 (55%) required intravenous fluids and/or tube feeding. There was no grade 3 or 4 chronic xerostomia. All patients showed complete response. Two patients had distant metastases and loco-regional recurrence, respectively. Conclusion: IMRT using the SMART boost technique allows parotid sparing, as shown clinically and by dosimetry, and may also be more effective biologically. A larger population of patients and a longer follow-up period are needed to evaluate ultimate tumor control and late toxicity.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.5
• /
• pp.1897-1900
• /
• 2015

Purpose: To evaluate acute toxicity in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) patients treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) with or without cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 newly diagnosed, histologically proven non-metastatic NPC patients treated with IMRT between May 2010 and December 2012, were evaluated retrospectively, 37 planned with Eclipse and 8 with Prowess Panther treatment planning system. The doses to the planning target volumes of primary tumor and involved lymph nodes, high risk region, and uninvolved regional nodal areas were 70 Gy, 60 Gy, and 54 Gy respectively and delivered simultaneously over 33 fractions to 39 patients. Another 6 patients irradiated with sequential boost technique. Some 84.4% of patients received chemotherapy. Acute toxicities were graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scoring criteria and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for chemotherapy side effects. Results: Median age was 43 years (14-79) and all patients were WHO type II. Grade 1 mucositis and dysphagia were observed in 17 (37.8%), and 10 (22.2%) patients, respectively. The incidence of acute grade 2 mucositis and dysphagia was 55.6% and 68.9%, respectively. The most common chemoradiotherapy related acute toxicities were nausea, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 toxicity was detected in 13 (28.8%) cases. No grade 4 toxicity was occurred. Mean weight loss was 9%. None of the patients required the insertion of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for nutritional support. Radiation therapy was completed without interruption in all patients. Conclusions: IMRT is a safe and effective treatment modality, and well tolerated by patients in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. No unexpected side effects were observed.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2004

Patient dose verification is one of the most Important responsibilities of the physician in the treatment delivery of radiation therapy. For the task, it is necessary to use an accurate dosimeter that can verify the patient dose profile, and it is also necessary to determine the physical characteristics of beams used in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) The Beam Intensity Scanner (BInS) System is presented for the dosimetric verification of the two dimensional photon beam. The BInS has a scintillator, made of phosphor Terbium-doped Gadolinium Oxysulphide (Gd$_2$O$_2$S:Tb), to produce fluorescence from the irradiation of photon and electron beams. These fluoroscopic signals are collected and digitized by a digital video camera (DVC) and then processed by custom made software to express the relative dose profile in a 3 dimensional (3D) plot. As an application of the BInS, measurements related to IWRT are made and presented in this work. Using a static multileaf collimator (SMLC) technique, the intensity modulated beam (IMB) is delivered via a sequence of static portals made by controlled leaves. Thus, when static subfields are generated by a sequence of abutting portals, the penumbras and scattered photons of the delivered beams overlap in abutting field regions and this results in the creation of “hot spots”. Using the BInS, inter-step “hot spots” inherent in SMLC are measured and an empirical method to remove them is proposed. Another major MLC technique in IMRT, the dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) technique, has different characteristics from SMLC due to a different leaf operation mechanism during the irradiation of photon and electron beams. By using the BInS, the actual delivered doses by SMLC and DMLC techniques are measured and compared. Even if the planned dose to a target volume is equal in our experimental setting, the actual delivered dose by DMLC technique is measured to be larger by 14.8% than that by SMLC, and this is due to scattered photons and contaminant electrons at d$_{max}$.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.237-244
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study is to compare method in the treatment of breast cancer using dose index. And, it is to find the optimized treatment technique to the patient. The phantom filled with tissue-equivalent material were used simulation and treatment as techniques of 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT was planned using Eclipse v10. By using HI(homogeneity index), CI(Conformity index), OED(Organ equivalent dose), EAR(Excess Absolute Risk), were assessed for each treatment plans. HI and CI of 3D-CRT, IMRT, VMAT were calculated 16.89, 11.21, 9.55 and 0.59, 0.61, 0.83. The organ average doses of Lt lung, Rt lung, liver, heart, esophagus, cord, Lt breast, trachea and stomach were 0.01 ~ 2.02 Gy, 0.36 ~ 5.01 Gy, 0.25 ~ 2.49 Gy, 0.14 ~ 6.92 Gy, 0.03 ~ 2.02 Gy, 0.01 ~ 1.06 Gy, 0.25 ~ 6.08 Gy, 0.08 ~ 0.59 Gy, 0.01 ~ 1.34 Gy, respectively. The OED, EAR of the IMRT and VMAT show higher than 3D-CRT. As the result of this study, we could confirm being higher dose index(HI, CI) in IMRT and VMAT than 3D-CRT, but doses of around normal organs was higher IMRT, VMAT than 3D-CRT.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• v.16 no.8
• /
• pp.3257-3265
• /
• 2015

Background: Radiotherapy is an important treatment of choice for breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery, and we compare the feasibility of using dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT2), single arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT1) and Multi-beam Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (M-IMRT) on patients after breast-conserving surgery. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with breast cancer (half right-sided and half left-sided) treated by conservative lumpectomy and requiring whole breast radiotherapy with tumor bed boost were planned with three different radiotherapy techniques: 1) VMAT1; 2) VMAT2; 3) M-IMRT. The distributions for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared. Dosimetries for all the techniques were compared. Results: All three techniques satisfied the dose constraint well. VMAT2 showed no obvious difference in the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the PTV with respect to M-IMRT and VMAT1. VMAT2 clearly improved the treatment efficiency and can also decrease the mean dose and V5Gy of the contralateral lung. The mean dose and maximum dose of the spinal cord and contralateral breast were lower for VMAT2 than the other two techniques. The very low dose distribution (V1Gy) of the contralateral breast also showed great reduction in VMAT2 compared with the other two techniques. For the ipsilateral lung of right-sided breast cancer, the mean dose was decreased significantly in VMAT2 compared with VMAT1 and M-IMRT. The V20Gy and V30Gy of the ipsilateral lung of the left-sided breast cancer for VMAT2 showed obvious reduction compared with the other two techniques. The heart statistics of VMAT2 also decreased considerably compared to VMAT1 and M-IMRT. Conclusions: Compared to the other two techniques, the dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy technique reduced radiation dose exposure to the organs at risk and maintained a reasonable target dose distribution.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.53-60
• /
• 2002

Motion of lung tumors from respiration has been reported in the literature to be as large as of 1-2 cm. This motion requires an additional margin between the Clinical Target Volume (CTV) and the Planning Target Volume (PTV). While such a margin is necessary, it may not be sufficient to ensure proper delivery of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) to the CTV during the simultaneous movement of the DMLC. Gated treatment has been proposed to improve normal tissues sparing as well as to ensure accurate dose coverage of the tumor volume. The following questions have not been addressed in the literature: a) what is the dose error to a target volume without gated IMRT treatment\ulcorner b) what is an acceptable gating window for such treatment. In this study, we address these questions by proposing a novel technique for calculating the 3D dose error that would result if a lung IMRT plan were delivered without gating. The method is also generalized for gated treatment with an arbitrary triggering window. IMRT plans for three patients with lung tumor were studied. The treatment plans were generated with HELIOS for delivery with 6 MV on a CL2100 Varian linear accelerator with a 26 pair MLC. A CTV to PTV margin of 1 cm was used. An IMRT planning system searches for an optimized fluence map ${\Phi}$ (x,y) for each port, which is then converted into a dynamic MLC file (DMLC). The DMLC file contains information about MLC subfield shapes and the fractional Monitor Units (MUs) to be delivered for each subfield. With a lung tumor, a CTV that executes a quasi periodic motion z(t) does not receive ${\Phi}$ (x,y), but rather an Effective Incident Fluence EIF(x,y). We numerically evaluate the EIF(x,y) from a given DMLC file by a coordinate transformation to the Target's Eye View (TEV). In the TEV coordinate system, the CTV itself is stationary, and the MLC is seen to execute a motion -z(t) that is superimposed on the DMLC motion. The resulting EIF(x,y)is inputted back into the dose calculation engine to estimate the 3D dose to a moving CTV. In this study, we model respiratory motion as a sinusoidal function with an amplitude of 10 mm in the superior-inferior direction, a period of 5 seconds, and an initial phase of zero.

• Korean Journal of Head & Neck Oncology
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.9-15
• /
• 2003

Purpose: To introduce our early experience with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods and Materials: Eight patients who underwent IMRT for no disseminated nasopharyngeal carcinoma at the Asan Medical Center between September 2001 and November 2002 were evaluate by prospective analysis. According to the 1997 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging classification, 5 had Stage III, and 3 had Stage IVB disease. The IMRT plans were designed to be delivered as a 'Simultaneous Modulated Accelerated Radiation Therapy' (SMART) using the 'step and shoot' technique with a MLC (multileaf collimator). Daily fractions of 2.2-2.5Gy and 1.9-2Gy were prescribed and delivered to the GTV and CTV and clinically negative neck node, respectively. The prescribed dose was 70A-79.0Gy to the gross tumor volume (GTV), 60Gy to the clinical target volume (CTV) and metastatic nodal station, and 46Gy to the clinically negative neck. All patients also received weekly cisplatin during radiotherapy. Acute and late normal tissue effects were graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Results: Follow-up period was ranging from 5 to 18 months. All patients showed complete response and loco-regional control rate was 100% but one patient died of malnutrition due to treatment related toxicity. There were no Grade 3 or 4 xerostomia and all patients had experienced improvement of salivary gland function. Conclusion: 'Simultaneous Modulated Accelerated Radiation Therapy' (SMART) boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique allows parotid sparing as evidenced both clinically and by dosimetry. Initial tumor response and loco-regional control was promising. It is clinically feasible. A larger population of patients and a long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate ultimate tumor control and late toxicity.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.111-121
• /
• 2017

Verification of dose distribution is an essential part of ensuring the treatment planning system's (TPS) calculated dose will achieve the desired outcome in radiation therapy. Each measurement have uncertainty associated with it. It is desirable to reduce the measurement uncertainty. A best approach is to reduce the uncertainty associated with each step of the process to keep the total uncertainty under acceptable limits. Point dose patient specific quality assurance (QA) is recommended by American Association of Medical Physicists (AAPM) and European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) for all the complex radiation therapy treatment techniques. Relative and absolute point dose measurement methods are used to verify the TPS computed dose. Relative and absolute point dose measurement techniques have a number of steps to measure the point dose which includes chamber cross calibration, electrometer reading, chamber calibration coefficient, beam quality correction factor, reference conditions, influences quantities, machine stability, nominal calibration factor (for relative method) and absolute dose calibration of machine. Keeping these parameters in mind, the estimated relative percentage uncertainty associated with the absolute point dose measurement is 2.1% (k=1). On the other hand, the relative percentage uncertainty associated with the relative point dose verification method is estimated to 1.0% (k=1). To compare both point dose measurement methods, 13 head and neck (H&N) IMRT patients were selected. A point dose for each patient was measured with both methods. The average percentage difference between TPS computed dose and measured absolute relative point dose was 1.4% and 1% respectively. The results of this comparative study show that while choosing the relative or absolute point dose measurement technique, both techniques can produce similar results for H&N IMRT treatment plans. There is no statistically significant difference between both point dose verification methods based upon the t-test for comparing two means.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.191-198
• /
• 2013

Purpose: To observe long-term clinical outcomes for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with forward intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), including local control and clinical toxicities. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 214 patients with stage I-II breast cancer who were treated with breast conserving surgery followed by adjuvant breast radiation therapy between 2001 and 2008. All patients were treated using forward IMRT. The whole breast was irradiated to a dose of 50 to 50.4 Gy followed by an 8 to 12 Gy electron boost to the surgical bed. Results: The median age was 46 years (range, 21 to 82 years) and the medial follow-up time was 7.3 years (range, 2.4 to 11.7 years). Stage T1 was 139 (65%) and T2 was 75 (35%), respectively. Ipsilateral breast recurrence was observed in 3 patients. The 5- and 10-year local control rates were 99.1% and 97.8%, respectively. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated according to the Harvard scale and 89.4% of patients were scored as excellent or good. Conclusion: The whole breast radiation therapy as an adjuvant treatment using a forward IMRT technique showed excellent long-term local control as well as favorable outcomes of toxicity and cosmesis.