• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• 제34권4호
• /
• pp.313-321
• /
• 2016

Purpose: Total scalp irradiation (TSI) is a rare but challenging indication. We previously reported that non-coplanar intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) was superior to coplanar IMRT in organ-at-risk (OAR) protection and target dose distribution. This consecutive treatment planning study compared IMRT with volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods: A retrospective treatment plan databank search was performed and 5 patient cases were randomly selected. Cranial imaging was restored from the initial planning computed tomography (CT) and target volumes and OAR were redelineated. For each patients, three treatment plans were calculated (coplanar/non-coplanar IMRT, VMAT; prescribed dose 50 Gy, single dose 2 Gy). Conformity, homogeneity and dose volume histograms were used for plan. Results: VMAT featured the lowest monitor units and the sharpest dose gradient (1.6 Gy/mm). Planning target volume (PTV) coverage and homogeneity was better in VMAT (coverage, 0.95; homogeneity index [HI], 0.118) compared to IMRT (coverage, 0.94; HI, 0.119) but coplanar IMRT produced the most conformal plans (conformity index [CI], 0.43). Minimum PTV dose range was 66.8%-88.4% in coplanar, 77.5%-88.2% in non-coplanar IMRT and 82.8%-90.3% in VMAT. Mean dose to the brain, brain stem, optic system (maximum dose) and lenses were 18.6, 13.2, 9.1, and 5.2 Gy for VMAT, 21.9, 13.4, 14.5, and 6.3 Gy for non-coplanar and 22.8, 16.5, 11.5, and 5.9 Gy for coplanar IMRT. Maximum optic chiasm dose was 7.7, 8.4, and 11.1 Gy (non-coplanar IMRT, VMAT, and coplanar IMRT). Conclusion: Target coverage, homogeneity and OAR protection, was slightly superior in VMAT plans which also produced the sharpest dose gradient towards healthy tissue.

• 한국의학물리학회지:의학물리
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.120-127
• /
• 2019

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of Mobius3D by comparison with an aSi-based electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and Octavius 4D, which are conventionally used for patient-specific prescription dose verification. Methods: The study was conducted using nine patients who were treated by volumetric modulated arc therapy. To evaluate the feasibility of Mobius3D for prescription dose verification, we compared the QA results of Mobius3D to an aSi-based EPID and the Octavius 4D dose verification methods. The first was the comparison of the Mobius3D verification phantom dose, and the second was to gamma index analysis. Results: The percentage differences between the calculated point dose and measurements from a PTW31010 ion chamber were 1.6%±1.3%, 2.0%±0.8%, and 1.2%±1.2%, using collapsed cone convolution, an analytical anisotropic algorithm, and the AcurosXB algorithm respectively. The average difference was found to be 1.6%±0.3%. Additionally, in the case of using the PTW31014 ion chamber, the corresponding results were 2.0%±1.4%, 2.4%±2.1%, and 1.6%±2.5%, showing an average agreement within 2.0%±0.3%. Considering all the criteria, the Mobius3D result showed that the percentage dose difference from the EPID was within 0.46%±0.34% on average, and the percentage dose difference from Octavius 4D was within 3.14%±2.85% on average. Conclusions: We conclude that Mobius3D can be used interchangeably with phantom-based dosimetry systems, which are commonly used as patient-specific prescription dose verification tools, especially under the conditions of 3%/3 mm and 95% pass rate.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제16권8호
• /
• pp.3257-3265
• /
• 2015

Background: Radiotherapy is an important treatment of choice for breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery, and we compare the feasibility of using dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT2), single arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT1) and Multi-beam Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (M-IMRT) on patients after breast-conserving surgery. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients with breast cancer (half right-sided and half left-sided) treated by conservative lumpectomy and requiring whole breast radiotherapy with tumor bed boost were planned with three different radiotherapy techniques: 1) VMAT1; 2) VMAT2; 3) M-IMRT. The distributions for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) were compared. Dosimetries for all the techniques were compared. Results: All three techniques satisfied the dose constraint well. VMAT2 showed no obvious difference in the homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI) of the PTV with respect to M-IMRT and VMAT1. VMAT2 clearly improved the treatment efficiency and can also decrease the mean dose and V5Gy of the contralateral lung. The mean dose and maximum dose of the spinal cord and contralateral breast were lower for VMAT2 than the other two techniques. The very low dose distribution (V1Gy) of the contralateral breast also showed great reduction in VMAT2 compared with the other two techniques. For the ipsilateral lung of right-sided breast cancer, the mean dose was decreased significantly in VMAT2 compared with VMAT1 and M-IMRT. The V20Gy and V30Gy of the ipsilateral lung of the left-sided breast cancer for VMAT2 showed obvious reduction compared with the other two techniques. The heart statistics of VMAT2 also decreased considerably compared to VMAT1 and M-IMRT. Conclusions: Compared to the other two techniques, the dual arc volumetric modulated arc therapy technique reduced radiation dose exposure to the organs at risk and maintained a reasonable target dose distribution.

• 한국의학물리학회지:의학물리
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.128-138
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Segmental analysis of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is not clinically used for compositional error source evaluation. Instead, dose verification is routinely used for plan-specific quality assurance (QA). While this approach identifies the resultant error, it does not specify which machine parameter was responsible for the error. In this research study, we adopted an approach for the segmental analysis of VMAT as a part of machine QA of linear accelerator (LINAC). Methods: Two portal dose QA plans were generated for VMAT QA: a) for full arc and b) for the arc, which was segmented in 12 subsegments. We investigated the multileaf collimator (MLC) position and dosimetric accuracy in the full and segmented arc delivery schemes. A MATLAB program was used to calculate the MLC position error from the data in the dynalog file. The Gamma passing rate (GPR) and the measured to planned dose difference (DD) in each pixel of the electronic portal imaging device was the measurement for dosimetric accuracy. The eclipse treatment planning system and a MATLAB program were used to calculate the dosimetric accuracy. Results: The maximum root-mean-square error of the MLC positions were <1 mm. The GPR was within the range of 98%-99.7% and was similar in both types of VMAT delivery. In general, the DD was <5 calibration units in both full arcs. A similar DD distribution was found for continuous arc and segmented arcs sums. Exceedingly high DD were not observed in any of the arc segment delivery schemes. The LINAC performance was acceptable regarding the execution of the VMAT QA plan. Conclusions: The segmental analysis proposed in this study is expected to be useful for the prediction of the delivery of the VMAT in relation to the gantry angle. We thus recommend the use of segmental analysis of VMAT as part of the regular QA.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• 제44권1호
• /
• pp.32-42
• /
• 2019

Background: There have been much efforts to develop the proper and realistic machine Quality Assurance (QA) reflecting on real Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plan. In this work we propose and test a special VMAT plan of plan-class specific (pcsr) QA, as a machine QA so that it might be a good solution to supplement weak point of present machine QA to make it more realistic for VMAT treatment. Materials and Methods: We divided human body into 5 treatment sites: brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. One plan for each treatment site was selected from real VMAT cases and contours were mapped into the computational human phantom where the same plan as real VMAT plan was created and called plan-class specific reference (pcsr) QA plan. We delivered this pcsr QA plan on a daily basis over the full research period and tracked how much MLC movement and dosimetric error occurred in regular delivery. Several real patients under treatments were also tracked to test the usefulness of pcsr QA through comparisons between them. We used dynalog file viewer (DFV) and Dynalog file to analyze position and speed of individual MLC leaf. The gamma pass rate from portal dosimetry for different gamma criteria was analyzed to evaluate analyze dosimetric accuracy. Results and Discussion: The maxRMS of MLC position error for all plans were all within the tolerance limit of < 0.35 cm and the positional variation of maxPEs for both pcsr and real plans were observed very stable over the research session. Daily variations of maxRMS of MLC speed error and gamma pass rate for real VMAT plans were observed very comparable to those in their pcsr plans in good acceptable fluctuation. Conclusion: We believe that the newly proposed pcsr QA would be useful and helpful to predict the mid-term quality of real VMAT treatment delivery.

• 대한방사선방어학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 대한방사선방어학회 2011년도 추계 학술발표회 및 심포지엄
• /
• pp.194-195
• /
• 2011

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• 제54권10호
• /
• pp.3816-3823
• /
• 2022

This work analyzed the dosimetric difference between the intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), partial/single/double-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (PA/SA/DA-VMAT) techniques in treatment planning for treating more than one target of lung cancer at different isocenters. IMRT and VMAT plans at different isocenters were created systematically using a Harold heterogeneous lung phantom. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), dose-volume histogram and mean and maximum dose of the PTV were calculated and analyzed. Furthermore, the dose-volume histogram and mean and maximum doses of the OARs such as right lung, contralateral lung and non GTV were determined from the plans. The IMRT plans showed the superior target dose coverage, higher mean and maximum values than other VMAT techniques. PA-VMAT technique shows more lung sparing and DA-VMAT increases the V_5/10/20 values of contralateral lung than other VMAT and IMRT techniques. The IMRT technique achieves highly conformal dose distribution to the target than other VMAT techniques. Comparing to the IMRT plans, the higher V_5/10/20 and mean lung dose were observed in the contralateral lung in the DA-VMAT.

• 대한방사선치료학회지
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.77-85
• /
• 2013

목 적: 용적변조회전 방사선치료는 겐트리 회전과 다엽콜리메이터, 선량률이 연동되어 진행되며 치료 중 선량 전달의 중단이 발생한 경우 겐트리와 다엽콜리메이터가 최초위치부터 다시 동작하여 정지된 지점부터 선량전달이 재개된다. 본 연구는 용적 변조회전 방사선치료의 치료 중단과 재 진행에 따른 선량전달의 오차를 분석하고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법: 10명의 환자를 대상으로 전산화치료계획시스템(Eclipse V10.0, Varian, USA)을 이용하여 용적변조회전 방사선 치료 계획을 수립하였다. TRILOGY (Varian, USA)의 6 MV 선속을 이용하여 계획된 선량을 이차원 배열 검출기와 CUBE (IBA dosimetry, Germany)팬텀에 조사하였다. OmniPro I'mRT system (V1.7b, IBA dosimetry, Germany)을 통해 4회에 걸쳐 일반적인 선량전달의 일관성을 평가 하고 선량 전달의 중단 또는 도어 인터락 발생으로 인해 선량 전달이 중단되고 최초지점부터 다시 시작되어 조사되는 경우와 비교하여 감마지수(Gamma index)의 변화를 분석하였다. 결 과: 선량 전달이 정상적으로 이루어진 경우에 각각의 감마 평균 신호 값의 차이는 0.1로 나타났고, 선량 전달의 중단이 발생한 경우 0.128로 나타났으며 도어 인터락의 경우 0.141로 나타났다. 각각의 경우 감마 표준편차 값의 차이는 0.071, 0.091, 0.099로 나타났고, 감마 최대값의 차이는 0.286, 0.379, 0.413으로 나타났다. Gamma pass rate (3%, 3 mm)는 허용 오차 범위를 만족하였고, T검증 결과 95% 신뢰구간에서 P-value가 0.05 미만으로 유의한 차이를 보였다. 결 론: 본 실험에서 치료 중 선량 전달의 중단 및 재시작에 관한 정확성을 평가해 본 결과 통계적으로는 차이가 있으나 임상적으로 허용 오차 범위이내로 문제가 없다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 그러나 겐트리와 다엽콜리메이터, 선량률의 연동으로 정확성이 요구되는 치료방법인 만큼 선량적인 측면에서 치료 중단에 따른 차이는 간과할 수 없다. 그러므로 갑작스러운 치료 중단 상황이 발생한 경우 추가적인 정도관리 절차를 통해 정확한 선량평가가 이루어져야 할 것으로 사료된다.

• 한국의학물리학회지:의학물리
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.233-241
• /
• 2014

본 연구에서는 $PRESAGE^{REU}$ 겔을 이용하여 방사선 치료계획 시 3차원 흡수선량 분포 검증을 위한 정도 관리 소프트웨어를 개발하여 겔을 이용한 3차원 선량분석 방법을 제시하고자 한다. 우선 치료계획상의 3차원 흡수선량 데이터와 측정한 겔 광학밀도 데이터의 입출력 기능을 구현하였고, 변환 테이블을 이용하여 광학밀도를 흡수선량으로 변환하는 기능을 구현하였다. 겔에서 측정된 흡수선량과 치료계획상의 흡수선량 분포간의 기하학적 매칭을 위하여 3D 볼륨 데이터의 x, y, z 방향 및 회전 변환을 구현하였다. 매칭이 완료된 두 선량 분포간에 일치도를 검증하기 위하여 3차원 감마 인덱스알고리듬을 구현하였고, 감마 통과 지도(gamma passing map) 기반의 일치도 확인 기능을 구현하였다. 광학밀도와 흡수선량간의 관계를 분석하기 위하여 원기둥 형태의 $PRESAGE^{REU}$ 겔을 대상으로 X-선 전산화 단층촬영기를 이용하여 CT 영상을 획득하였고, 방사선 치료계획 시스템(Eclipse, Varian, Palo Alto)을 이용하여 원반 형태의 6개의 가상 표적을 생성하여, 각각에 1 Gy에서 6 Gy까지 선량이 전달되도록 입체조형 방사선 치료계획을 수립하였다. 다음으로 광학 CT 스캐너($Vista^{TM}$, Modus Medical Devices Inc, Canada)를 이용하여 기준 투영 영상들을 획득하였고, 치료계획과 동일하게 겔에 방사선을 조사하였다. 조사2시간 후 매 2시간 간격으로 광학 CT 스캐너로 투영 영상 셋을 획득 후 3차원 광학밀도 데이터로 재구성하였다. 실린더 중심축을 따라 치료계획상의 흡수선량 프로파일과 광학밀도 프로파일을 추출하여 광학선량 대비 흡수선량 대응 테이블을 정의하였다. 이후 본 연구에서 개발한 소프트웨어를 이용하여 3차원상의 선량 분포의 일치도를 평가하였다. 광학밀도와 흡수선량간에는 supra-linear 관계가 나타났으며, 광학밀도는 그 크기에 따라 24시간당 60% 전후로 감쇄하였다. 측정된 흡수선량은 중심축 부근에서는 치료계획 선량과 잘 일치하였으나, 주변부로 갈수록 크게 낮아짐을 확인할 수 있었으며, 이로 인하여 3D 감마 통과율은 선량 차이율과 DtoA 각각 3%/3 mm의 조건하에 70.36%로 낮게 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 광학 CT 스캐너 내부의 오일과 $PRESAGE^{REU}$ 겔간의 굴절률이 정확하게 매칭되지 않아서 광학 스캔 시 빔이 굴절되어 부정확한 데이터를 만들어 내는 것으로 분석되었다. 본 연구에서 개발한 정도 관리소프트웨어는 3차원 겔 선량을 비교 분석하기에 유효한 것으로 평가되었으나, $PRESAGE^{REU}$ 겔로부터 정확한 흡수선량데이터를 획득하기 위해 겔 선량측정 과정의 많은 개선이 요구된다.

• 대한방사선치료학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.45-52
• /
• 2015

목 적 : 전립선암의 방사선치료는 치료기법에 따라 주요장기와 정상조직의 선량분포에 차이가 나타난다. 본 연구에서는 전립선암 환자의 수술 후 방사선치료 시 직장풍선을 삽입한 환자에게 회전수를 달리한 용적변조회전치료(volumetric modulated arc therapy, VMAT)계획과 세기변조방사선치료(intensity modulated radiation therapy, IMRT)계획을 각각 수립하여 선량분포 특성을 비교하고 치료의 효율성을 평가하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법 : 본원에서 전립선암 수술 후 방사선 치료를 시행한 10명의 환자를 대상으로 하였다. 직장풍선을 삽입한 환자의 CT영상을 3 mm 두께로 획득하고 Eclipse (Ver 11.0, Varian, Palo Alto, USA)를 사용하여 HD120MLC가 장착된 Truebeam STx (Varian, Palo Alto, USA)의 10 MV 에너지를 적용하였다. 환자마다 1 Arc, 2 Arc VMAT계획과 7조사면의 IMRT계획을 수립하였으며 각 치료계획의 선량체적제한과 plan normalization 값은 동일하게 적용하였다. 수립된 세 가지 치료계획을 평가하기위해 PTV의 coverage, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI)를 비교하였고, PTV주변 정상조직의 선량퍼짐정도를 알아보기 위해 50% 등선량체적과 PTV체적의 비($R_{50%}$)를 산출하였다. 결정장기 (organ at risk, OAR)에서는 직장의 $D_{25%}$와 방광의 $D_{mean}$을 비교하였고 치료의 효율성을 평가하기 위해서 총 MU와 조사시간을 측정하였으며, 각 평가항목별 결과는 환자 10명의 평균값으로 비교분석하였다. 추가적으로 선량전달 정확도를 검증하기 위해 EPID를 이용한 portal dosimetry를 진행하였다. 결 과 : 각 치료계획에서 나타난 PTV coverage와 HI의 차이는 크지 않았지만 CI는 1A-VMAT, 2A-VMAT, 7F-IMRT에서 각각 1.036, 1.035, 1.230으로 VMAT에 비해 7F-IMRT가 높았고(p=0.00), $R_{50%}$는 3.083, 3.054, 3.991로 2A-VMAT이 제일 낮았고 7F-IMRT에서 가장 높게 나타났다(p=0.00). 치료계획에 따른 직장의 $D_{25%}$는 VMAT에서 비슷했지만 7F-IMRT가 약 7% 높게 나타났고(p=0.02), 방광의 $D_{mean}$은 큰 차이가 없었다(P>0.05). 총 MU는 1A-VMAT, 2A-VMAT, 7F-IMRT에서 각각 494.7, 479.7, 757.9로 7F-IMRT가 가장 많았고(p=0.00), 조사시간은 65.2초, 133.1초, 145.5초로 1A-VMAT이 확연히 짧았다(p=0.00). portal dosimetry 검증에서는 모든 치료계획에서 99.5% 이상의 gamma pass rate(2 mm, 2%)을 보였다(P=0.00). 결 론 : 본 연구결과 직장풍선을 삽입한 전립선암 환자의 수술 후 방사선치료 시, 치료기법에 따른 PTV coverage의 차이는 크지 않았지만 1A, 2A-VMAT이 7F-IMRT에 비해 정상조직과 직장선량을 낮추는데 효과적이었다. VMAT중에서는 $R_{50%}$와 MU가 2A-VMAT에서 다소 낮았지만 조사시간이 짧은 1A-VMAT이 치료에 더 효율적이며 환자의 치료 중 움직임 또한 줄일 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.