• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.46 no.6
• /
• pp.527-533
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical risk of spinal radiosurgery by calculating the dose difference due to dose calculation algorithm and multi-leaf collimator positioning error. The images acquired by the CT simulator were recalculated by correcting the multi-leaf collimator position in the dose verification program created using MATLAB and applying stoichiometric calibration and Monte Carlo algorithm. With multi-leaf collimator positioning error, the clinical target volume (CTV) showed a dose difference of up to 13% in the dose delivered to the 95% volume, while the gross tumor volume (GTV) showed a dose difference of 9%. The average dose delivered to the total volume showed dose variation from -8.9% to 9% and -10.1% to 10.2% for GTV and CTV, respectively. The maximum dose delivered to the total volume of the spinal cord showed a dose difference from -14.2% to 19.6%, and the dose delivered to the 0.35 ㎤ volume showed a dose difference from -15.5% to 19.4%. In future research, automating the linkage between treatment planning systems and dose verification programs would be useful for spinal radiosurgery.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.119-124
• /
• 2015

According as radiation therapy technique develops, standardization of radiation therapy has been complicated by the plan QA(Quality Assurance). However, plan QA tools are two type, OADT (opposite accumulation dose tool) and 3DADT (3 dimensional accumulation dose tool). OADT is not applied to evaluation of beam path. Therefore tolerance error of beam path will establish measurement value at OADT. Plan is six beam path, five irradiation field at each beam path. And beam path error is 0 degree, 0.2 degree, 0.4 degree, 0.6 degree, 0.6 degree, 0.8 degree. Plan QA accomplishes at OADT, 3DADT. The more path error increases, the more plan QA error increases. Tolerance error of OADT path is 0.357 using tolerance error of conventional plan QA. Henceforth plan QA using OADT will include beam path error. In addition, It will increase reliability through precise and various plan technique.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.55-62
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This study aims to contribute to the reduction of complications of breast cancer radiation therapy by analyzing skin dose differences due to Set-up error. Materials and Method: Pseudo breast was produced using a 3D printer, applied to the phantom, and images were acquired through CT. Treatment plan was carried out that the PTV, which contains 95% of the prescription dose, could be more than 95% of the volume, so that Dmax did not exceed 107% of the prescription dose. The Set-up error was evaluated by applying ±1mm/±3mm/±5mm to the X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis. Results: The dose-variation in skin due to Set-up error was approximately 106% to 123% compared to prescription dose, and the highest dose in skin was 49.24 Gy at 5mm Set-up error in the lateral direction of the X-axis. More than 107% of the prescription dose was the widest at 6.87 cc in skin lateral. Conclusions: If a Set-up error occurs during left breast cancer VMAT, a great difference in skin dose was shown in the lateral direction of the X-axis. If more effort is made to align the X-axis of the breast treated during CBCT registration, the dose-variation of skin will be reduced.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.95-101
• /
• 1999

The aims of this report are to classify the incorrect data of patients and the errors of dose and dose distribution observed in QA activities on teleradiotherapy chart, and to analyze their frequency. In our department, radiation physicists check several sheets of patient chart to reduce numeric errors before starting radiation therapy and at least once a week, which include history, port diagram, MU calculation or treatment planning summary and daily treatment sheet. The observed errors are classified as followings. 1) Identity of patient, 2) Omitted or unrecorded history sheet even though not including the item related to dose, 3) Omission of port diagram, or omitted or erroneous data, 4) Erroneous calculation of MU and point dose, and important causes, 5) Loss of summary sheet of treatment planning, and erroneous data of patient in the sheet, 6) Erroneous record of radiation therapy, and errors of daily dose, port setup, MU and accumulated dose in the daily treatment sheet, 7) Errors leading inexact dose or dose distribution, errors not administerd even though its possibility, and simply recorded errors, 8) Omission of sign. Number of errors was counted rather than the number of patients. In radiotherapy chart QA from Jun 17, 1996 to Jul 31, 1999, no error of patient identity had been observed. 431 Errors in 399 patient charts had been observed and there were 405 physical errors, 9 cases of omitted or unrecorded history sheet, and 17 unsigned. There were 23 cases (5.7%) of omitted port diagram, 21 cases (5.2%) of omitted data and 73 cases (18.0 %) of erroneous data in port diagram, 13 cases (3.2 %) treated without MU calculation, 68 cases (16.3 %) of erroneous MU, 8 cases (2.0%) of erroneous point dose, 1 case (0.2 %) of omitted treatment planning summary, 11 cases (2.7%) of erroneous input of patient data, 13 cases (3.2%) of uncorrected record of treatment, 20 cases (4.9%) of discordant daily doses in MU calculation sheet and daily treatment sheet, 33 cases (8.1%) of erroneous setup, 52 cases (12.8%) of MU setting error, 61 cases (15.1%) of erroneous accumulated dose. Cases of error leading inexact dose or dose distribution were 239 (59.0 %), cases of error not administered even though its possibility were 142 (35.1 %), and cases of simply recorded error were 24 (5.9 %). The numeric errors observed in radiotherapy chart ranged over various items. Because errors observed can actually contribute to erroneous dose or dose distribution, or have the possibility to lead such errors, thorough QA activity in physical aspects of radiotherapy charts is required.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2003.09a
• /
• pp.41-41
• /
• 2003

Purpose: Even if the wedge filter is widely used for the radiation therapy to modify the photon beam intensity, the wedged photon beam dose calculation is not so easy. Radiation therapy planning systems (RTPS) have been used the empirical or semi-analytical methods such as attenuation method using wedge filter parameters or wedge filter factor obtained from measurement. However, these methods can cause serious error in penumbra region as well as in edge region. In this study, we propose the dose calculation algorithm for wedged field to minimize the error especially in the outer beam region. Materials and Method: Modified intensity by wedge filter was calculated using tissue-maximum ratio (TMR) and scatter-maximum ratio (SMR) of wedged field. Profiles of wedged and non-wedged direction was also used. The result of new dose calculation was compared with measurement and the result from attenuation method. Results: Proposed algorithm showed the good agreement with measurement in the high dose-gradient region as well as in the inner beam region. The error was decreased comparing to attenuation method. Conclusion: Although necessary beam data for the RTPS commissioning was increased, new algorithm would guarantee the improved dose calculation accuracy for wedged field. In future, this algorithm could be adopted in RTPS.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.217-224
• /
• 2014

Purpose : Conventional, IMRT, at CSI treatment with VMAT, this study compare the treatment plan with dose changes measured at Junction field according to the error of Setup. Materials and Methods : This study established Conventional, the IMRT, VMAT treatment planning for CSI therapy using the Eclipse 10.0 (Eclipse10.0, Varian, USA) and chose person in Seoul National University Hospital. Verification plan was also created to apply IMRT QA phantom for each treatment plan to the film measurements. At this time, the error of Setup was applied to the 2, 4, 6mm respectively with the head and foot direction. ("+" direction of the head, "-" means that the foot direction.) Using IMRT QA Phantom and EBT2 film, was investigated by placing the error of Setup for each Junction. We check the consistency of the measured Film and plan dose distribution by gamma index (Gamma index, ${\gamma}$). In addition, we compared the error of Setup by the dose distribution, and analyzing the uniformity of the dose distribution within the target by calculating the Homogeneity Index (HI). Results : It was figured out that 90.49%-gamma index we obtained with film is agreement with film scan score and dose distribution of treatment plan. Also, depend on the dose distribution on distance, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the head direction, it showed that 3.1, 4.5, 8.1 at $^*Diff$(%) of Conventional, 1.1, 3.5, 6.3 at IMRT, and 1.6, 2.5, 5.7 at VMAT. In the same way, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the foot direction, it showed that -1.6, -2.8, -4.4 at $^*Diff$(%) of Conventional, -0.9, -1.6, -2.9 at IMRT, and -0.5, -2.2, -2.5 at VMAT. Homogeneity Index(HI)s are 1.216 at Conventional, 1.095 at IMRT and 1.069 at VMAT. Discussion and Conclusion : The dose-change depend on the error of Setup at the CSI RT(radiation therapy) using IMRT and VMAT which have advantages, Dose homogeneity and the gradual dose gradients on the Junction part is lower than that of Conventional CSI RT. This a little change of dose means that there is less danger on patients despite of the error of Setup generated at the CSI RT.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.119-126
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study is to analyze motion-induced dose error generated by each tumor motion parameters of irregular tumor motion in helical tomotherapy. To understand the effect of the irregular tumor motion, a simple analytical model was simulated. Moving cases that has tumor motion were divided into a slightly irregular tumor motion case, a large irregular tumor motion case and a patient case. The slightly irregular tumor motion case was simulated with a variability of 10% in the tumor motion parameters of amplitude (amplitude case), period (period case), and baseline (baseline case), while the large irregular tumor motion case was simulated with a variability of 40%. In the phase case, the initial phase of the tumor motion was divided into end inhale, mid exhale, end exhale, and mid inhale; the simulated dose profiles for each case were compared. The patient case was also investigated to verify the motion-induced dose error in 'clinical-like' conditions. According to the simulation process, the dose profile was calculated. The moving case was compared with the static case that has no tumor motion. In the amplitude, period, baseline cases, the results show that the motion-induced dose error in the large irregular tumor motion case was larger than that in the slightly irregular tumor motion case or regular tumor motion case. Because the offset effect was inversely proportion to irregularity of tumor motion, offset effect was smaller in the large irregular tumor motion case than the slightly irregular tumor motion case or regular tumor motion case. In the phase case, the larger dose discrepancy was observed in the irregular tumor motion case than regular tumor motion case. A larger motion-induced dose error was also observed in the patient case than in the regular tumor motion case. This study analyzed motion-induced dose error as a function of each tumor motion parameters of irregular tumor motion during helical tomotherapy. The analysis showed that variability control of irregular tumor motion is important. We believe that the variability of irregular tumor motion can be reduced by using abdominal compression and respiratory training.

• Journal of Radiation Industry
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.297-302
• /
• 2018

The wedge filter has two movements, fixed and dynamic. In this study, the depth dose distribution was analyzed to determine the stability of the dose distribution and dose volume histograms obtained by evaluating the usability of the critical normal tissue dose around the tumor dose. The depth dose was analyzed from the dose distribution from a Linac (6 MV and 10 MV irradiation field of energy $20{\times}20cm^2$, wedge filter with a SSD of 100 cm and $15^{\circ}$, $30^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$ Y1-in (Left -7 cm), Y2-out(Right +7 cm). To analyze the fluctuations of the depth dose, a fixed wedge and dynamic wedge toe portion was examined according to the energy and angle because the size of the fluctuations was included in the error bound and did not show significant differences. The neck, breast, and pelvic dosimetry in tumor tissue are measured more commonly with a dynamic wedge than a fixed wedge presumably due to the error range. On the other hand, dosimetry of the surrounding normal tissue is more common using a fixed wedge than with a dynamic wedge.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.81-90
• /
• 2012

The effect of setup uncertainties on CTV dose and the correlation between setup uncertainties and setup margin were evaluated by Monte Carlo based numerical simulation. Patient specific information of IMRT treatment plan for rectal cancer designed on the VARIAN Eclipse planning system was utilized for the Monte Carlo simulation program including the planned dose distribution and tumor volume information of a rectal cancer patient. The simulation program was developed for the purpose of the study on Linux environment using open source packages, GNU C++ and ROOT data analysis framework. All misalignments of patient setup were assumed to follow the central limit theorem. Thus systematic and random errors were generated according to the gaussian statistics with a given standard deviation as simulation input parameter. After the setup error simulations, the change of dose in CTV volume was analyzed with the simulation result. In order to verify the conventional margin recipe, the correlation between setup error and setup margin was compared with the margin formula developed on three dimensional conformal radiation therapy. The simulation was performed total 2,000 times for each simulation input of systematic and random errors independently. The size of standard deviation for generating patient setup errors was changed from 1 mm to 10 mm with 1 mm step. In case for the systematic error the minimum dose on CTV $D_{min}^{stat{\cdot}}$ was decreased from 100.4 to 72.50% and the mean dose $\bar{D}_{syst{\cdot}}$ was decreased from 100.45% to 97.88%. However the standard deviation of dose distribution in CTV volume was increased from 0.02% to 3.33%. The effect of random error gave the same result of a reduction of mean and minimum dose to CTV volume. It was found that the minimum dose on CTV volume $D_{min}^{rand{\cdot}}$ was reduced from 100.45% to 94.80% and the mean dose to CTV $\bar{D}_{rand{\cdot}}$ was decreased from 100.46% to 97.87%. Like systematic error, the standard deviation of CTV dose ${\Delta}D_{rand}$ was increased from 0.01% to 0.63%. After calculating a size of margin for each systematic and random error the "population ratio" was introduced and applied to verify margin recipe. It was found that the conventional margin formula satisfy margin object on IMRT treatment for rectal cancer. It is considered that the developed Monte-carlo based simulation program might be useful to study for patient setup error and dose coverage in CTV volume due to variations of margin size and setup error.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.183-189
• /
• 2011

To quantitatively evaluate how setup errors in conjunction with dose gradients contribute to the error in IMRT dose quality assurance (DQA) measurements. The control group consisted of 5 DQA plans of which all individual field dose differences were less than ${\pm}5%$. On the contrary, the examination group was composed of 16 DQA plans where any individual field dose difference was larger than ${\pm}10%$ even though their total dose differences were less than ${\pm}5%$. The difference in 3D dose gradients between the two groups was estimated in a cube of $6{\times}6{\times}6\;mm^3$ centered at the verification point. Under the assumption that setup errors existed during the DQA measurements of the examination group, a three dimensional offset point inside the cube was sought out, where the individual field dose difference was minimized. The average dose gradients of the control group along the x, y, and z axes were 0.21, 0.20, and 0.15 $cGy{\cdot}mm^{-1}$, respectively, while those of the examination group were 0.64, 0.48, and 0.28 $cGy{\cdot}mm^{-1}$, respectively. All 16 plans of the examination group had their own 3D offset points in the cube. The individual field dose differences recalculated at the offset points were mostly diminished and thus the average values of total and individual field dose differences were reduced from 3.1% to 2.2% and 15.4% to 2.2%, respectively. The offset distribution turned out to be random in the 3D coordinate. This study provided the quantitative data that support the large individual field dose difference mainly stems from possible geometric errors (e.g., random setup errors) under the influence of steep dose gradients of IMRT field.