• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.927-933
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the differences in scan time, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in the third lumbar vertebral region including the back fat, spinal cord, and cerebrospinal fluid using the mDixon, T2 TSE, and T2 spectral pre-saturation with inversion-recovery (SPIR) techniques. With the factors affecting the SNR fixed, the lumbar sagittal plane images of 30 adults were compared on mDixon, T2 TSE, and T2 SPIR imaging tests. The test times for mDixon, T2 TSE, and T2 SPIR were 115 seconds, 60 seconds, and 60 seconds, respectively. The mDixon T2 images showed higher SNR than the T2 TSE images at the third lumbar vertebral region (p<0.05), lower SNR in the back fat and cerebrospinal fluid (p<0.05) areas, and comparable SNR in the spinal cord (p>0.05). The CNR between the third lumbar vertebral area and back fat was higher in the mDixon T2 images, and the CNR of the cerebrospinal fluid and spinal cord images was higher in the T2 TSE images (p<0.05). The mDixon T2 FS images CNR was lower for the 3rd lumbar vertebral body region and back fat than the T2 SPIR images, and higher for the spinal cord and cerebrospinal fluid images (p<0.05). The CNR between the third lumbar body and back fat areas was higher in the mDixon T2 FS images (p<0.05), and there was no difference in the CNR in the images of the cerebrospinal fluid and the spinal cord (p>0.05). It is difficult to determine whether the mDixon technique is superior to the conventional T2 TSE and T2 SPIR techniques in terms of test time, SNR, and CNR. This study was confined to patients with simple lower back pain and was limited by controlled experimental conditions. Studies using clinically applied protocols are warranted in the future.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.105-110
• /
• 2007

Purpose : In spite of recent remarkable improvement of diagnostic imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and PET and radiation therapy planing systems, ICR plan of uterine cervix cancer, based on recommendation of ICRU38(2D film-based) such as Point A, is still used widely. A 3-dimensional ICR plan based on CT image provides dose-volume histogram(DVH) information of the tumor and normal tissue. In this study, we compared tumor-dose, rectal-dose and bladder-dose through an analysis of DVH between CTV plan and ICRU38 plan based on CT image. Method and Material : We analyzed 11 patients with a cervix cancer who received the ICR of Ir-192 HDR. After 40Gy of external beam radiation therapy, ICR plan was established using PLATO(Nucletron) v.14.2 planing system. CT scan was done to all the patients using CT-simulator(Ultra Z, Philips). We contoured CTV, rectum and bladder on the CT image and established CTV plan which delivers the 100% dose to CTV and ICRU plan which delivers the 100% dose to the point A. Result : The volume$(average{\pm}SD)$ of CTV, rectum and bladder in all of 11 patients is $21.8{\pm}6.6cm^3,\;60.9{\pm}25.0cm^3,\;111.6{\pm}40.1cm^3$ respectively. The volume covered by 100% isodose curve is $126.7{\pm}18.9cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $98.2{\pm}74.5cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.0001), respectively. In (On) ICRU planning, $22.0cm^3$ of CTV volume was not covered by 100% isodose curve in one patient whose residual tumor size is greater than 4cm, while more than 100% dose was irradiated unnecessarily to the normal organ of $62.2{\pm}4.8cm^3$ other than the tumor in the remaining 10 patients with a residual tumor less than 4cm in size. Bladder dose recommended by ICRU 38 was $90.1{\pm}21.3%$ and $68.7{\pm}26.6%$ in ICRU plan and in CTV plan respectively(p=0.001) while rectal dose recommended by ICRU 38 was $86.4{\pm}18.3%$ and $76.9{\pm}15.6%$ in ICRU plan and in CTV plan, respectively(p=0.08). Bladder and rectum maximum dose was $137.2{\pm}50.1%,\;101.1{\pm}41.8%$ in ICRU plan and $107.6{\pm}47.9%,\;86.9{\pm}30.8%$ in CTV plan, respectively. Therefore, the radiation dose to normal organ was lower in CTV plan than in ICRU plan. But the normal tissue dose was remarkably higher than a recommended dose in CTV plan in one patient whose residual tumor size was greater than 4cm. The volume of rectum receiving more than 80% isodose (V80rec) was $1.8{\pm}2.4cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $0.7{\pm}1.0cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.02). The volume of bladder receiving more than 80% isodose(V80bla) was $12.2{\pm}8.9cm^3$ in ICRU plan and $3.5{\pm}4.1cm^3$ in CTV plan(p=0.005). According to these parameters, CTV plan could also save more normal tissue compared to ICRU38 plan. Conclusion : An unnecessary excessive radiation dose is irradiated to normal tissues within 100% isodose area in the traditional ICRU plan in case of a small size of cervix cancer, but if we use CTV plan based on CT image, the normal tissue dose could be reduced remarkably without a compromise of tumor dose. However, in a large tumor case, we need more research on an effective 3D-planing to reduce the normal tissue dose.