• 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.

• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.39-45
• /
• 2022

This study aimed to investigate the validation and modify the analytical method to determine quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside and isoquercitrin in Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench for the standardization of ingredients in development of functional health products. The analytical method was validated based on the ICH (International Conference for Harmonization) guidelines to verify the reliability and validity there of on the specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, detection limit and quantification limit. For the HPLC analysis method, the peak retention time of the index component of the standard solution and the peak retention time of the index component of A. esculentus L. Moench powder sample were consistent with the spectra thereof, confirming the specificity. The calibration curves of quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside and isoquercitrin showed a linearity with a near-one correlation coefficient (0.9999 and 0.9999), indicating the high suitability thereof for the analysis. A. esculentus L. Moench powder sample of a known concentration were prepared with low, medium, and high concentrations of standard substances and were calculated for the precision and accuracy. The precision of quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside and isoquercitrin was confirmed for intra-day and daily. As a result, the intra-day precision was found to be 0.50-1.48% and 0.77-2.87%, and the daily precision to be 0.07-3.37% and 0.58-1.37%, implying an excellent precision at level below 5%. As a result of accuracy measurement, the intra-day accuracy of quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside and isoquercitrin was found to be 104.87-109.64% and the daily accuracy thereof was found to be 106.85-109.06%, reflecting high level of accuracy. The detection limits of quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside and isoquercitrin were 0.24 ㎍/mL and 0.16 ㎍/mL, respectively, whereas the quantitation limits were 0.71 ㎍/mL and 0.49 ㎍/mL, confirming that detection was valid at the low concentrations as well. From the analysis, the established analytical method was proven to be excellent with high level of results from the verification on the specificity, linearity, precision, accuracy, detection limit and quantitation limit thereof. In addition, as a result of analyzing the content of A. esculentus L. Moench powder samples using a validated analytical method, quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside was analyzed to contain 1.49±0.01 mg/dry weight g, while isoquercitrin contained 1.39±0.01 mg/dry weight g. The study was conducted to verify that the simultaneous analysis on quercetin-3-𝑜-gentiobioside and isoquercitrin, the indicators of A. esculentus L. Moench, is a scientifically reliable and suitable analytical method.