• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.369-378
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study was to investigate image differences between KVCT vs MVCT depending on a high densities metal included in the phantom and to analyze the r values for the purpose of the dose differences between each methods. We verified the possibilities for clinical indications that using MVCT is available for the radiation therapy treatment planning. Cheese phantom was used to get a density table for each CT and CT sinogram data was transferred to radiation planning computer through DICOM_RT. Using this data, the treatment dose plan has been calculated in RTP system. We compared the differences of r values between calculated and measured values, and then applied this data to the real patient's treatment planning. The contrast of MVCT image was superior to KVCT. In KVCT, each pixel which has more than 3.0 of density was difficult to be differentiated, but in MVCT, more than 5.0 density of pixels were distinguished clearly. With the normal phantom, the percentage of the case which has less than 1($r\leq1$, acceptable criteria) of gamma value, was 94.92% for KVCT and 93.87% for MVCT. But with the cheese phantom, which has high density plug, the percentage was 88.25% for KVCT and 93.77% for MVCT respectively. MVCT has many advantages than KVCT. Especially, when the patient has high density metal, such as total hip arthroplasty, MVCT is more efficient to define the anatomical structure around the high density implants without any artifacts. MVCT helps to calculate the treatment dose more accurately.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.25-32
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The size, shape, and volume of prosthetic appliance depend on the metal artifacts resulting from dental implant during head and neck treatment with radiation. This reduced the accuracy of contouring targets and surrounding normal tissues in radiation treatment plan. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to obtain the images of metal representing the size of tooth through MVCT, SMART-MAR CT and KVCT, evaluate the volumes, apply them into the proton therapy plan, and analyze the difference of dose distribution. Materials and Methods : Metal A ($0.5{\times}0.5{\times}0.5cm$), Metal B ($1{\times}1{\times}1cm$), and Metal C ($1{\times}2{\times}1cm$) similar in size to inlay, crown, and bridge taking the treatments used at the dentist's into account were made with Cerrobend ($9.64g/cm^3$). Metal was placed into the In House Head & Neck Phantom and by using CT Simulator (Discovery CT 590RT, GE, USA) the images of KVCT and SMART-MAR were obtained with slice thickness 1.25 mm. The images of MVCT were obtained in the same way with $RADIXACT^{(R)}$ Series (Accuracy $Precision^{(R)}$, USA). The images of metal obtained through MVCT, SMART-MAR CT, and KVCT were compared in both size of axis X, Y, and Z and volume based on the Autocontour Thresholds Raw Values from the computerized treatment planning equipment Pinnacle (Ver 9.10, Philips, Palo Alto, USA). The proton treatment plan (Ray station 5.1, RaySearch, USA) was set by fusing the contour of metal B ($1{\times}1{\times}1cm$) obtained from the above experiment by each CT into KVCT in order to compare the difference of dose distribution. Result: Referencing the actual sizes, it was appeared: Metal A (MVCT: 1.0 times, SMART-MAR CT: 1.84 times, and KVCT: 1.92 times), Metal B (MVCT: 1.02 times, SMART-MAR CT: 1.47 times, and KVCT: 1.82 times), and Metal C (MVCT: 1.0 times, SMART-MAR CT: 1.46 times, and KVCT: 1.66 times). MVCT was measured most similarly to the actual metal volume. As a result of measurement by applying the volume of metal B into proton treatment plan, the dose of $D_{99%}$ volume was measured as: MVCT: 3094 CcGE, SMART-MAR CT: 2902 CcGE, and KVCT: 2880 CcGE, against the reference 3082 CcGE Conclusion: Overall volume and axes X and Z were most identical to the actual sizes in MVCT and axis Y, which is in the superior-Inferior direction, was regular in length without differences in CT. The best dose distribution was shown in MVCT having similar size, shape, and volume of metal when treating head and neck protons. Thus it is thought that it would be very useful if the contour of prosthetic appliance using MVCT is applied into KVCT for proton treatment plan.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.280-288
• /
• 2008

Purpose: To identify the inter-fractional shift pattern and to assess an adequate treatment margin in the radiotherapy of a liver tumor using mega-voltage computed tomography (MVCT) of a tomotherapy unit. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six patients were treated for liver tumors by tomotherapy from April 2006 to August 2007. The MVCT images of each patient were analyzed from the $1^{st}$ to the $10^{th}$ fraction for the assessment of the daily liver shift by four groups based on Couinard's proposal. Daily setup errors were corrected by bony landmarks as a prerequisite. Subsequently, the anterior-, posterior-, right-, and left shifts of the liver edges were measured by maximum linear discrepancies between the kilo-voltage computed tomography (KVCT) image and MVCT image. All data were set in the 2-dimensional right angle coordinate system of the transverse section of each patient's body. Results: The liver boundary shift had different patterns for each group. In group II (segment 2, 3, and 4), the anterior mean shift was $2.80{\pm}1.73\;mm$ outwards, while the left mean shift was $2.23{\pm}1.37\;mm$ inwards. In group IV (segment 7 and 8), the anterior-, posterior-, right-, and left mean shifts were $0.15{\pm}3.93\;mm$ inwards, $3.15{\pm}6.58\;mm$ inwards, $0.60{\pm}3.58\;mm$ inwards, and $4.50{\pm}5.35\;mm$ inwards, respectively. The reduced volume in group II after MVCT reassessment might be a consequence of stomach toxicity. Conclusion: Inter-fractional liver shifts of each group based on Couinard's proposal were somewhat systematic despite certain variations observed in each patient. The geometrical deformation of the liver by respiratory movement can cause shrinkage in the left margins of liver. We recommend a more sophisticated approach in free-breathing mode when irradiating the left lobe of liver in order to avoid stomach toxicity.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.11 no.10
• /
• pp.577-584
• /
• 2013

IGRT(Image Guided Radiation Therapy) in radiation therapy is a very useful technique in order to increase setup of patient and position reproducibility. Tomotherapy can increase accuracy of setup to take IGRT by MVCT, but it be for verified accuracy of Image guided, and MVCT occurs the exposure of patient. Through this study, IGRT accuracy of Tomotherapy is very accurate within 1.0mm. When MVCT using Tomotherapy phantom for QA, QC be taken, exposure dose is Fine(2mm Slice thickness) 3cGy, Normal(4mm Slice thickness) 1.5cGy, Corse(6mmSlice thickness) 1.0cGy. Measurement value of spatial resolution using AAPM CT performance phantom did't cause a big difference. As a result, ability of IGRT in Tomotherapy is very accurate. While obtaining image for IGRT, we should minimize expose range because patient's be exposed to radiation. We should make an effort to do accurate radiation therapy to minimize exposure of patient by selecting the appropriate thickness of MVCT depending on patient's body and treat area.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.157-165
• /
• 2012

Purpose: We evaluated usefulness of abdominal compressor for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients and hepato-biliary cancer and metastatic liver cancer patients. Materials and Methods: From November 2011 to March 2012, we selected HCC patients who gained reduction of diaphragm movement >1 cm through abdominal compressor (diaphragm control, elekta, sweden) for HT (Hi-Art Tomotherapy, USA). We got planning computed tomography (CT) images and 4 dimensional (4D) images through 4D CT (somatom sensation, siemens, germany). The gross tumor volume (GTV) included a gross tumor and margins considering tumor movement. The planning target volume (PTV) included a 5 to 7 mm safety margin around GTV. We classified patients into two groups according to distance between tumor and organs at risk (OAR, stomach, duodenum, bowel). Patients with the distance more than 1 cm are classified as the 1st group and they received SBRT of 4 or 5 fractions. Patients with the distance less than 1 cm are classified as the 2nd group and they received tomotherapy of 20 fractions. Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) were performed 4 or 10 fractions. When we verify a MVCT fusion considering priority to liver than bone-technique. We sent MVCT images to Mim_vista (Mimsoftware, ver .5.4. USA) and we re-delineated stomach, duodenum and bowel to bowel_organ and delineated liver. First, we analyzed MVCT images to check the setup variation. Second we compared dose difference between tumor and OAR based on adaptive dose through adaptive planning station and Mim_vista. Results: Average setup variation from MVCT was $-0.66{\pm}1.53$ mm (left-right) $0.39{\pm}4.17$ mm (superior-inferior), $0.71{\pm}1.74$ mm (anterior-posterior), $-0.18{\pm}0.30$ degrees (roll). 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1) were similar to setup variation. 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) of $V_{diff3%}$ (volume of 3% difference of dose) of GTV through adaptive planing station was $0.78{\pm}0.05%$, PTV was $9.97{\pm}3.62%$, $V_{diff5%}$ was GTV 0.0%, PTV was $2.9{\pm}0.95%$, maximum dose difference rate of bowel_organ was $-6.85{\pm}1.11%$. 2nd Group (d<1) GTV of $V_{diff3%}$ was $1.62{\pm}0.55%$, PTV was $8.61{\pm}2.01%$, $V_{diff5%}$ of GTV was 0.0%, PTV was $5.33{\pm}2.32%$, maximum dose difference rate of bowel_organ was $28.33{\pm}24.41%$. Conclusion: Despite we saw diaphragm movement more than 5 mm with flouroscopy after use an abdominal compressor, average setup_variation from MVCT was less than 5 mm. Therefore, we could estimate the range of setup_error within a 5 mm. Target's dose difference rate of 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1) were similar, while 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1)'s bowel_organ's maximum dose difference rate's maximum difference was more than 35%, 1st group ($d{\geq}1$)'s bowel_organ's maximum dose difference rate was smaller than 2nd group (d<1). When applicating SBRT to HCC, abdominal compressor is useful to control diaphragm movement in selected patients with more than 1 cm bowel_organ distance.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.11-18
• /
• 2010

Purpose: In every time radiation therapy set up errors occur because internal anatomical organs move due to breathing and change of patient's position. These errors may affect the change of dose distribution between target area and normal structure. This study investigates the usefulness of body-fix in clinical treatment. Materials and Methods: Among 55~60 aged male patients who has hepatocellular carcinoma in area of liver's couinaud classification, we chose 10 patients and divided two groups by using body-fix or not. When applying body-fix, we maintained a vacuum of 80 mbar pressure by using vacuum pump (Medical intelligence, Germany). Patients had free breathing with supine position. After working to fuse and consist MV-CT (megavoltage computed tomography) with KV-CT (kilovoltage computed tomography) obtained by 5 times treatments, we compared and analyzed set up errors occurred to (Right to Left, RL) of X axis, (Anterioposterio, AP) of Z axis, (Cranicoudal, CC) of Y axis. Results: Average Set up errors through image fusion showed that group A moved $0.3{\pm}1.1\;mm$ (Cranicoudal, CC), $-1.1{\pm}0.7\;mm$ (Right to Left, RL), $-0.2{\pm}0.7\;mm$ (Anterioposterio, AP) and group B moved $0.62{\pm}1.94\;mm$ (Cranicoudal, CC), $-3.62{\pm}1.5\;mm$ (Right to Left, RL), $-0.22{\pm}1.2\;mm$ (Anterioposterio, AP). Deviations of X, Y and Z axis directions by applying body-fix indicated that maximum X axis was 5.5 mm, Y axis was 19.8 mm and Z axis was 3.2 mm. In relation to analysis of error directions, consistency doesn't exist for every patient but by using body-fix showed that the result of stable aspect in spite of changes of everyday's patient position and breathing. Conclusion: Using body-fix for liver cancer patient is considered effectively for tomotherapy. Because deviations between group A and B exist but they were stable and regular.