• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.275-286
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To setup procedures of quality assurance (OA) for implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) clinically, report OA procedures peformed for one patient with prostate cancer. Materials and methods : $P^3IMRT$ (ADAC) and linear accelerator (Siemens) with multileaf collimator are used to implement IMRT. At first, the positional accuracy, reproducibility of MLC, and leaf transmission factor were evaluated. RTP commissioning was peformed again to consider small field effect. After RTP recommissioning, a test plan of a C-shaped PTV was made using 9 intensity modulated beams, and the calculated isocenter dose was compared with the measured one in solid water phantom. As a patient-specific IMRT QA, one patient with prostate cancer was planned using 6 beams of total 74 segmented fields. The same beams were used to recalculate dose in a solid water phantom. Dose of these beams were measured with a 0.015 cc micro-ionization chamber, a diode detector, films, and an array detector and compared with calculated one. Results : The positioning accuracy of MLC was about 1 mm, and the reproducibility was around 0.5 mm. For leaf transmission factor for 10 MV photon beams, interleaf leakage was measured $1.9\%$ and midleaf leakage $0.9\%$ relative to $10\times\;cm^2$ open filed. Penumbra measured with film, diode detector, microionization chamber, and conventional 0.125 cc chamber showed that $80\~20\%$ penumbra width measured with a 0.125 cc chamber was 2 mm larger than that of film, which means a 0.125 cc ionization chamber was unacceptable for measuring small field such like 0.5 cm beamlet. After RTP recommissioning, the discrepancy between the measured and calculated dose profile for a small field of $1\times1\;cm^2$ size was less than $2\%$. The isocenter dose of the test plan of C-shaped PTV was measured two times with micro-ionization chamber in solid phantom showed that the errors upto $12\%$ for individual beam, but total dose delivered were agreed with the calculated within $2\%$. The transverse dose distribution measured with EC-L film was agreed with the calculated one in general. The isocenter dose for the patient measured in solid phantom was agreed within $1.5\%$. On-axis dose profiles of each individual beam at the position of the central leaf measured with film and array detector were found that at out-of-the-field region, the calculated dose underestimates about $2\%$, at inside-the-field the measured one was agreed within $3\%$, except some position. Conclusion : It is necessary more tight quality control of MLC for IMRT relative to conventional large field treatment and to develop QA procedures to check intensity pattern more efficiently. At the conclusion, we did setup an appropriate QA procedures for IMRT by a series of verifications including the measurement of absolute dose at the isocenter with a micro-ionization chamber, film dosimetry for verifying intensity pattern, and another measurement with an array detector for comparing off-axis dose profile.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.7-15
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In modern radiotherapy technology, several methods of image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) are used to deliver accurate doses to tumor target locations and normal organs, including CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) and other devices, ExacTrac System, other than CBCT equipped with linear accelerators. In previous studies comparing the two systems, positional errors were analysed rearwards using Offline-view or evaluated only with a Yaw rotation with the X, Y, and Z axes. In this study, when using CBCT and ExacTrac to perform 6 Degree of the Freedom(DoF) Online IGRT in a treatment center with two equipment, the difference between the set-up calibration values seen in each system, the time taken for patient set-up, and the radiation usefulness of the imaging device is evaluated. Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the difference between mobile calibrations and exposure radiation dose, the glass dosimetry and Rando Phantom were used for 11 cancer patients with head circumference from March to October 2017 in order to assess the difference between mobile calibrations and the time taken from Set-up to shortly before IGRT. CBCT and ExacTrac System were used for IGRT of all patients. An average of 10 CBCT and ExacTrac images were obtained per patient during the total treatment period, and the difference in 6D Online Automation values between the two systems was calculated within the ROI setting. In this case, the area of interest designation in the image obtained from CBCT was fixed to the same anatomical structure as the image obtained through ExacTrac. The difference in positional values for the six axes (SI, AP, LR; Rotation group: Pitch, Roll, Rtn) between the two systems, the total time taken from patient set-up to just before IGRT, and exposure dose were measured and compared respectively with the RandoPhantom. Results: the set-up error in the phantom and patient was less than 1mm in the translation group and less than 1.5° in the rotation group, and the RMS values of all axes except the Rtn value were less than 1mm and 1°. The time taken to correct the set-up error in each system was an average of 256±47.6sec for IGRT using CBCT and 84±3.5sec for ExacTrac, respectively. Radiation exposure dose by IGRT per treatment was measured at 37 times higher than ExacTrac in CBCT and ExacTrac at 2.468mGy and 0.066mGy at Oral Mucosa among the 7 measurement locations in the head and neck area. Conclusion: Through 6D online automatic positioning between the CBCT and ExacTrac systems, the set-up error was found to be less than 1mm, 1.02°, including the patient's movement (random error), as well as the systematic error of the two systems. This error range is considered to be reasonable when considering that the PTV Margin is 3mm during the head and neck IMRT treatment in the present study. However, considering the changes in target and risk organs due to changes in patient weight during the treatment period, it is considered to be appropriately used in combination with CBCT.