• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.10 no.4
• /
• pp.233-239
• /
• 2016

Comparison of the dose aspect that radiation therapy treatments using IMRT, tomotherapy, mArc (modulated arc therapy). The experimental subject is non-small cell lung cancer patient. The prescription dose is 58.0 Gy to the volume of PTV(planning target volume). and spinal cord, esophagus, and liver organ is the normal organ(OAR, organ at risk). Average PTV value is 57.60 Gy in mArc and 61.04 Gy in tomotherapy and 58.95 Gy in IMRT. The average dose of the Esophagus is 2.84 Gy in m-Arc, 5.14 Gy in tomotherapy, 1.84 Gy in IMRT. The average dose of the Liver is 19.44 Gy in m-Arc, 12.22 Gy in tomotherapy, 21.97 Gy in IMRT. The average dose of the Spinal cord is 5.72 Gy in m-Arc, 7.08 Gy in tomotherapy, 6.15 Gy in IMRT. Results of this study is no significant difference between mArc and tomotherapy and Linac based IMRT in dose study and also, mArc's dose coverage and dose volume histogram is better than IMRT and tomotherapy. but, This study is limited to a disease of cancer. in addition, fewer number of groups. The wide range the more research can be developed patient-specific treatment techniques and be applied to the patients

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.723-730
• /
• 2021

This study tries to compare dose distribution between arc radiation therapy and Tomotherapy, which are main radiation therapy modalities. The subjects of this study are lung cancer patients. For planning target volume (PTV), a dose of 60.0 Gy was set as a basis. The PTVmean of Arc was 61.04 Gy, and that of Tomotherapy was 58.50 Gy. The total lung capacities of Arc and Tomotherapy were 3.0 Gy and 4.24 Gy, respectively. The mean heart doses of Arc and Tomotherapy were 0.13 and 0.34, respectively; the mean trachea dose of Arc and Tomotherapy were 1.35 and 2.58, respectively; the mean esophagus dose of Arc and Tomotherapy were 0.41 and 0.86, respectively; the mean spinal cord dose of Arc and Tomotherapy were 3.65 and 4.68, respectively. With regard to the appropriateness of therapeutic effect in DHV, both modalities seemed appropriate. Tomotherapy protected normal tissues better than Arc radiation therapy. In Tomotherapy, patients need to have treatment long in a limited space. If such a point is overcome, Tomotherapy is better. Otherwise, Arc radiation therapy can be applied. This study was conducted with treatment planning images. Therefore, the results of this study are different from actual treatment results. If more research is conducted to overcome the limitation, the effects of radiation therapy are expected to increase further.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.65-74
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Recently, A Catcher was added to prevent sagging in Radixact^® X9. In this study, We quantitatively compared general couch of Tomo-HDA^® with catcher couch of Radixact^® X9 using the human phantom and evaluated usefulness of catcher. Materials and methods: We used rando phantom for phantom study and set the each iso-center of head and neck region and Pelvis region for region parameter. Furthermore, We used hand made low melting point alloys for weight parameter. MVCT(Mega Voltage Computed Tomography) images were acquired for vertical error and rotation(pitch) error measurement increasing weight(A: 15kg, A+B: 30kg, A+B+C: 45kg). We selected 120 patients who has been treated using Tomotherpy machine for patient study. 60 patients has been treated in Tomo-HDA^® and the other 60 patients treated in Radixact^® X9. In the patient study methods, vertical error and rotation(pitch) error was measured for mean value calculation using MVCT images acquired on first day of radiation therapy. Result: Result of phantom study, Vertical error and rotation(pitch) error was increased proportionally increased as the weight increases in general couch of Tomo-HDA^®. each maximum value was 7.52mm, 0.38° in head and neck region and 11.94mm, 0.92° in pelvis region. However, We could confirm that there was stable error range(0.02~0.1mm, 0~0.04°) in Catcher couch of Radixact^®. Result of patient study, The head and neck region was measured 4.79mm 0.33° lower, and the pelvis region was measured 7.66mm, 0.22° lower in Catcher couch of Radixact^® X9. Conclusion: In this study, Vertical error and rotation(pitch) error was proportionally increased as the weight increases in general couch of Tomo-HDA^®. Especially, The pelvis region error was more increased than the head and neck region error. However, Vertical error and rotation(pitch) error was regularly generated regardless of weight or regions in Catcher^TM couch of Radixact^® X9 that this study's purpose. In conclusion, Catcher^TM couch of Radixact^® X9 can minimize mechanical error that couch sagging. Furthermore, The pelvis region is more efficiency than head and neck region. In radiation therapy using Tomotherapy machine, it is regarded that may contribute to minimizing unadjusted pitch error due to characters of Tomotherapy.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.6 no.5
• /
• pp.365-371
• /
• 2012

The radiation therapy treatment technique is developed from 3D-CRT, IMRT to Tomotherapy. and these three technique was most widely using methods. We find out a comparison normal tissue doses and tumor dose of 3D-CRT, IMRT(Linac Based), and Tomotherapy on Head and Neck Cancer. We achieved radiological image used the Human model phantom (Anthropomorphic Phantom) and it was taken CT simulation (Slice Thickness : 3mm) and GTV was nasopharngeal region and PTV(including set-up margin) was GTV plus 2mm area. and transfer those images to the radiation planning system (3D-CRT - ADAC-Pinnacle3, Tomotherapy - Tomotherapy Hi-Art System). The prescription dose was 7020 cGy and measuring PTV's dose and nomal tissue (parotid gland, oral cavity, spinal cord). The PTV's doses was Tomotherapy, Linac Based - IMRT, 3D-CRT was 6923 cGy, 6901 cGy and 6718 cGy its dose value was meet TCP because its value was up to the 95% based on 7020 cGy, Nomal tissue (parotid gland, oral cavity, spinal cord) was 1966 cGy(Tomotherapy), 2405 cGy(IMRT), 2468 cGy(3D-CRT)[parotid gland], 2991 cGy(Tomotherapy), 3062 cGy(IMRT), 3684 cGy (3D-CRT)[oral cavity], 1768 cGy(Tomotherapy), 2151 cGy(IMRT), 4031 cGy(3D-CRT)[spinal cord] its value did not exceeded NTCP. All the treatment techniques are equated with tumor and nomal tissue doses. The 3D-CRT was worse than other techniques on dose distribution, but it is reasonable in terms of TCP and NTCP baseline Tomotherapy, IMRT -dose distribution was relatively superior- was hard to therapy to claustrophobic patients and patients with respiratory failure. Particularly, in case on Tomotherapy, it take MVCT before treatment so dose measurement will be unnecessary radiation exposure to patients. Conclusion, Tomotherapy was the best treatment technique and 2nd was IMRT, and 3rd 3D-CRT. But applicable differently depending on the the patient's condition even though dose not matter.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.69-76
• /
• 2017

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to verify dosimetric results and reproducibility of position during craniospinal irradiation (CSI) using tomotherapy (Accuray Incorporated, USA). Also, by comparing with conventional CSI Technique, we confirmed the efficiency of using a Tomotherapy. Materials and Methods: 10 CSI patients who get tomotherapy participate. Patient-specific quality assurances (QA) for each patient are conducted before treatment. When treating, we took Megavoltage Computed Tomography (MVCT) that range of head and neck before treatment, L spine area after treatment. Also we conducted in-vivo dosimetry to check a scalp dose. Finally, we made a 3D conventional radiation therapy(3D-CRT) of those patients to compare dosimetric differences with tomotherapy treatment planning. Results: V107, V95 of brain is 0 %, 97.2 % in tomotherapy, and 0.3 %, 95.1 % in 3D-CRT. In spine, value of V107, V95 is 0.2 %, 18.6 % in tomotherapy and 89.6 %, 69.9 % in 3D-CRT. Except kidney and lung, tomotherapy reduced normal organ doses than 3D-CRT. The maximum positioning error value of X, Y, Z was 10.2 mm, -8.9 mm, -11.9 mm. Through in-vivo dosimetry, the average of scalp dose was 67.8 % of prescription dose. All patient-specific QA were passed by tolerance value. Conclusion: CSI using tomotherapy had a risk of parallel organ such as lung and kidney because of integral dose in low dose area. However, it demonstrated dosimetric superiority at a target and saved normal organ to reduce high dose. Also results of reproducibility were not exceeded margins that estimated treatment planning and invivo dosimetry showed to reduce scalp dose. Therefore, CSI using tomotherapy is considered to efficient method to make up for 3D-CRT.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.285-291
• /
• 2013

In this study, compare and analyze the dose distribution and availability of radiation therapy when using a different devices to TNI(Total Lymphnodal Irradiation). Test subjects(patients) are 15 people(Male 7, Female 8). Acquire CT Simulation images of the 15 people using Somatom Sansation Open 16 channel and then acquired images was transferred to each treatment planning system Pinnacle Ver 8.0 and Tomotherapy Planning System and separate the tumor tissue and normal tissues(whole lung, spinal cord, Rt kidney, Lt kidney). Tumor prescription dose was set to 750 cGy. and then Compare the Dose Compatibility, Normal Tissue's Absorbed Dose, Dose Distribution and DVH. Statistical analysis was performed SPSS Ver. 18.0 by paired sample Assay. The absorbed dose in the tumor tissue was $751.0{\pm}4.7cGy$ in tomotherapy planning, $746.9{\pm}14.1cGy$ in linac. Tomotherapy's absorbed dose in the tumor was more appropriate than linac. and These values are not statistically significant(p>0.05). Tomotherapy plan's absorbed dose in the normal tissues were less than linac's plan. This value was statistically significant(p<0.05) excepted of whole lung. In DVH, appropriated on tumor and normal tissues in tomotherapy and linac but tomotherapy's TER was better than linac. Namely, a result of Absorbed dose in tumor and normal tissue, Dose distribution pattern, DVH, Both radiation therapy devices were appropriated in radiation therapy on TER. The Linac has a short treatment time(about 15-20 min) and open space on treatment time. It cause infant and pediatric patients to receiving uncomfortable treatment. So, In this case, it will be fine that Linac based therapy was restricted use. and if the patient was cooperative, it will be show a better prognosis that Tomotherapy using Radiation Therapy.