• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.4
• /
• pp.327-335
• /
• 2013

This study investigates the case of clinical application for TomoDirect 3D-CRT(TD-3D) and TomoHelical 3D-CRT(TH-3D) with evaluating dose distribution for clinical application in each case. Treatment plans were created for 8 patients who had 3 dimensional conformal radiation therapy using TD-3D and TH-3D mode. Each patients were treated for sarcoma, CSI(craniospinal irradiaion), breast, brain, pancreas, spine metastasis, SVC syndrome and esophagus. DVH(dose volume histogram) and isodose curve were used for comparison of each treatment modality. TD-3D shows better dose distribution over the irradiation field without junction effect because TD-3D was not influenced by target length for sarcoma and CSI case. In breast case, dosimetric results of CTV, the average value of D 99%, D 95% were $49.2{\pm}0.4$ Gy, $49.9{\pm}0.4$ Gy and V 105%, V 110% were 0%, respectively. TH-3D with the dosimetric block decreased dose of normal organ in brain, pancreas, spine metastasis case. SCV syndrome also effectively decreased dose of normal organ by using dose block to the critical organs(spinal cord <38 Gy). TH-3D combined with other treatment modalities was possible to boost irradiation and was total dose was reduced to spinal cord in esophagus case(spinal cord <45 Gy, lung V 20 <20%). 3D-CRT using Tomotherapy could overcomes some dosimetric limitations, when we faced Conventional Linac based CRT and shows clinically proper dose distribution. In conclusion, 3D-CRT using Tomotherapy will be one of the effective 3D-CRT techniques.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.17-29
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this work was to investigate the dosimetric impact of mixed energy partial arc technique on prostate cancer VMAT. Materials and Methods: This study involved prostate only patients planned with 70Gy in 30 fractions to the planning target volume (PTV). Femoral heads, Bladder and Rectum were considered as oragan at risk (OARs). For this study, mixed energy partial arcs (MEPA) were generated with gantry angle set to 180°~230°, 310°~50° for 6MV arc and 130°~50°, 310°~230° for 15MV arc. Each arc set the avoidance sector which is gantry angle 230°~310°, 50°~130° at first arc and 50°~310° at second arc. After that, two plans were summed and were analyzed the dosimetry parameter of each structure such as Maximum dose, Mean dose, D2%, Homogeneity index (HI) and Conformity Index (CI) for PTV and Maximum dose, Mean dose, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, and V20Gy for OARs and Monitor Unit (MU) with 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan. Results: In MEPA, the maximum dose, mean dose and D2% were lower than 6MV 1 ARC plan(p<0.0005). However, the average difference of maximum dose was 0.24%, 0.39%, 0.60% (p<0.450, 0.321, 0.139) higher than 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively and D2% was 0.42%, 0.49%, 0.59% (p<0.073, 0.087, 0.033) higher than compared plans. The average difference of mean dose was 0.09% lower than 10MV 2 ARC plan, but it is 0.27%, 0.12% (p<0.184, 0.521) higher than 6MV 2 ARC, 15MV 2 ARC plan, respectively. HI was 0.064±0.006 which is the lowest value (p<0.005, 0.357, 0.273, 0.801) among the all plans. For CI, there was no significant differences which were 1.12±0.038 in MEPA, 1.12±0.036, 1.11±0.024, 1.11±0.030, 1.12±0.027 in 6MV 1 ARC, 6MV, 10MV, 15MV 2 ARC, respectively. MEPA produced significantly lower rectum dose. Especially, V70Gy, V50Gy, V30Gy, V20Gy were 3.40, 16.79, 37.86, 48.09 that were lower than other plans. For bladder dose, V30Gy, V20Gy were lower than other plans. However, the mean dose of both femoral head were 9.69±2.93, 9.88±2.5 which were 2.8Gy~3.28Gy higher than other plans. The mean MU of MEPA were 19.53% lower than 6MV 1 ARC, 5.7% lower than 10MV 2 ARC respectively. Conclusion: This study for prostate radiotherapy demonstrated that a choice of MEPA VMAT has the potential to minimize doses to OARs and improve homogeneity to PTV at the expense of a moderate increase in maximum and mean dose to the femoral heads.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.23-31
• /
• 2010

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of 3-dimensional (3-D) radiotherapy and the radiographic parameters of 2-dimensional (2-D) radiotherapy such as central lung distance (CLD) and maximal heart distance (MHD). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 110 patients who were treated with postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer. A two-field tangential technique, a three-field technique, and the reverse hockey stick method were used. The radiation dose administered to whole breast or the chest wall was 50.4 Gy, whereas a 45 Gy was administered to the supraclavicular field. The NTCPs of the heart and lung were calculated by the modified Lyman model and the relative seriality model. Results: For all patients, the NTCPs of radiation-induced pneumonitis and cardiac mortality were 0.5% and 0.7%, respectively. The NTCP of radiation-induced pneumonitis was higher in patients treated with the reverse hockey stick method than in those treated by other two techniques (0.0%, 0.0%, 3.1%, p<0.001). The NTCP of radiation-induced pneumonitis increased with CLD. The NTCP of cardiac mortality increased with MHD ($R^2=0.808$). Conclusion: We found a close correlation between the NTCP of 3-D radiotherapy and 2-D radiographic parameters. Our results are useful to reanalyze the previous 2-D based clinical reports about breast radiation therapy complications as a viewpoint of NTCP.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.91-98
• /
• 2014

Purpose : To compare the dosimetry for the left breast cancer treatment between three dimensional conformal radiation radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and Hybrid planning and to estimate usefulness of Hybrid planning Materials and Methods : Five patients with left breast cancer were included in the study. They were planned using several different radiotherapy techniques including: 1)open rectangular field, 2)tangential wedge-based field 3)field in field, 4)hybrid planning(energy, wedge combine). For each patient planning was using Light Speed RT-16 CT and PINNACLE planning system-ver.9.2. Hybrid plan was made using same system and using the same targets and optimization goals. We comparing the Homogeneity Index(HI), normal organs at the does-volume histogram(DVH) Results : In all plans, the Homogeneity Index(HI) of Hybrid planning was significantly better than other. Dose comparison of HI= 2D-RT:38.32, TW:38.32, FIF:29.22, HYBRID:30.57. 2D-RT, TW, FIF Hybrid$V_{75_-lung}$=112.33, 125.14, 121.3, 123.78. $V_{50_-lung}$=155.43, 159.62, 157.96, 159.06. $V_{25_-lung}$=199.86, 200.22, 198.65, 200.31. $V_{50_-heart}$=26.07, 27.1, 26.85, 27.17 $V_{30_-heart}$=33.71, 34.37, 34.15, 34.65 Conclusion : In summary, 3D-CRT, Hybrid planning techniques were found to have acceptableCTV coverage in our study. However the Hybrid planning increased radiation dose exposure to normal tissue. If you apply for treatment of inhomogeneity areas like lung, For best results will be achieved.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.35 no.3
• /
• pp.255-263
• /
• 2012

The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient specific quality assurance (QA) results of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) through the AAPM Task Group Report 119. Using the treatment planning system, both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were established. The absolute dose and relative dose for the target and OAR were measured by using an ion chamber and the bi-planar diode array, respectively. The plan evaluation was used by the Dose volume histogram (DVH) and the dose verification was implemented by compare the measured value with the calculated value. For the evaluation of plan, in case of prostate, both IMRT and VMAT were closed the goal of target and OARs. In case of H&N and Multi-target, IMRT was not reached the goal of target, but VMAT was reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(easy), both were reached the goal of target and OARs. In case of C-shape(hard), both were reached the goal of target but not reached the goal of OARs. For the evaluation of absolute dose, in case of IMRT, the mean of relative error (%) between measured and calculated value was $1.24{\pm}2.06%$ and $1.4{\pm}2.9%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 3.65% and 4.39% for target and OAR, respectively. In case of VMAT the mean of relative error was $2.06{\pm}0.64%$ and $2.21{\pm}0.74%$ for target and OAR, respectively. The confidence limits were 4.09% and 3.04% for target and OAR, respectively. For the evaluation of relative dose, in case of IMRT, the average percentage of passing gamma criteria (3mm/3%) were $98.3{\pm}1.5%$ and the confidence limits were 3.78%. In case of VMAT, the average percentage were $98.2{\pm}1.1%$ and the confidence limits were 3.95%. We performed IMRT and VMAT patient specific QA using TG-119 based procedure, all analyzed results were satisfied with acceptance criteria based on TG-119. So, the IMRT and VMAT of our institution was confirmed the accuracy.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.227-235
• /
• 2013

In adaptive radiotherapy(ART), generated composite dose of surrounding normal tissue on overall treatment course which is using deformable image registration from multistage images. Also, compared with doses summed by each treatment plan and clinical significance is considered. From the first of May, 2011 to the last of July, 2012. Patients who were given treatment and had the head and neck cancer with 3-dimension conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, those who were carried out adaptive radiotherapy cause of tumor shrinkage and weight loss. Generated composite dose of surrounding normal tissue using deformable image registration was been possible, statistically significant difference was showed to mandible($48.95{\pm}3.89$ vs $49.10{\pm}3.55$ Gy), oral cavity($36.93{\pm}4.03$ vs $38.97{\pm}5.08$ Gy), parotid gland($35.71{\pm}6.22$ vs $36.12{\pm}6.70$ Gy) and temporomandibular joint($18.41{\pm}9.60$ vs $20.13{\pm}10.42$ Gy) compared with doses summed by each treatment plan. The results of this study show significant difference between composite dose by deformable image registration and doses summed by each treatment plan, composite dose by deformable image registration may generate more exact evaluation to surrounding normal tissue in adaptive radiotherapy.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.89-94
• /
• 2008

TomoTherapy has a merit to treat cancer with Intensity modulated radiation and combines precise 3-D imaging from computerized tomography (CT scanning) with highly targeted radiation beams and rotating beamlets. In this paper, we comparing the dose distribution between TomoTherapy and linear accelerator based intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for 10 Head & Neck patients using TomoTherapy which is newly installed and operated at National Cancer Center since Sept. 2006. Furthermore, we estimate how the homogeneity and Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) are changed by motion of target. Inverse planning was carried out using CadPlan planning system (CadPlan R.6.4.7, Varian Medical System Inc. 3100 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1129, USA). For each patient, an inverse IMRT plan was also made using TomoTherapy Hi-Art System (Hi-Art2_2_4 2.2.4.15, TomoTherapy Incorporated, 1240 Deming Way, Madson, WI 53717-1954, USA) and using the same targets and optimization goals. All TomoTherapy plans compared favorably with the IMRT plans regarding sparing of the organs at risk and keeping an equivalent target dose homogeneity. Our results suggest that TomoTherapy is able to reduce the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) further, keeping a similar target dose homogeneity.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.177-182
• /
• 2014

Purpose : The goal of this study was to compare and analysis the dose distribution and treatment time between Tomotherapy planning with fixed jaw(FJ) and dynamic jaw(DJ). Materials and Methods : Seven patients were selected in the study including five common clinical cases(brain, head and neck(HN), lung, prostate, spine). 1) Helical Tomotherapy plans with FJ and DJ were generated with the same planning parameters such as Modulation factor, Pitch and Field width. 2) Tomo_edge plans with a larger field width were generated to compare to conventional HT delivery with fixed jaw. Dosimetric evaluation indices for target coverage are Dmin, Conformity index(CI) and for whole body including target are $V_{10%}$, $V_{25%}$, $V_{50%}$, $V_{75%}$ using Dose-volume histogram(DVH). Also, Treatment time and Cumulative MU were used for clinical review on Tomo_edge. Results : In case of using the same field width of Tomotherapy planning with FJ and DJ, the averaged variations were $V_{10%}$: -11.91%, $V_{25%}$: -7.6%, $V_{50%}$ :-4.75%, $V_{75%}$: -1.04%. Tomo_edge with a larger field width provides the averaged variations for target coverage: Dmin: -0.72%, CI: -1.25% and also shows the tendency of a sharp $V_{x%}$ decline in low dose area. The clinical improvements in the larger field width with DJ were observed in the treatment time, ranging from -51.21% to -15.11, and the Cumulative MU decrease, ranging from -57.74% to -15.31%. Conclusion : Target coverage achieved by FJ and DJ with the same field width has little differences. But integral doses on whole body efficiently decreased. Compared to the conventional HT delivery, Tomo_edge with a larger field width presents a little worse target coverage. However, it provides faster treatment delivery and improved cranial-caudal target dose conformity. Therefore, Tomo_edge mode is efficient in improving the treatment time and integral dose while maintaining comparable plan quality in clinic.