• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.208-213
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Generally a whole body bone scan has been known as one of the most frequently executed exams in the nuclear medicine fields. Asan medical center, usually use various gamma camera systems - manufactured by PHILIPS (PRECEDENCE, BRIGHTVIEW), SIEMENS (ECAM, ECAM signature, ECAM plus, SYMBIA T2), GE (INFINIA) - to execute whole body scan. But, as we know, each camera's sensitivity is not same so it is hard to consistent diagnosis of patients. So our purpose is when we execute whole body bone scans, we exclude uncontrollable factors and try to correct controllable factors such as inherent sensitivity of gamma camera. In this study, we're going to measure each gamma camera's sensitivity and study about reasonable correction factors of whole body bone scan to follow up patient's condition using different gamma cameras. Materials and Methods: We used the $^{99m}Tc$ flood phantom, it recommend by IAEA recommendation based on general counts rate of a whole body scan and measured counts rates by the use of various gamma cameras - PRECEDENCE, BRIGHTVIEW, ECAM, ECAM signature, ECAM plus, IFINIA - in Asan medical center nuclear medicine department. For measuring sensitivity, all gamma camera equipped LEHR collimator (Low Energy High Resolution multi parallel Collimator) and the $^{99m}Tc$ gamma spectrum was adjusted around 15% window level, the photo peak was set to 140-kev and acquirded for 60 sec and 120 sec in all gamma cameras. In order to verify whether can apply calculated correction factors to whole body bone scan or not, we actually conducted the whole body bone scan to 27 patients and we compared it analyzed that results. Results: After experimenting using $^{99m}Tc$ flood phantom, sensitivity of ECAM plus was highest and other sensitivity order of all gamma camera is ECAM signature, SYMBIA T2, ECAM, BRIGHTVIEW, IFINIA, PRECEDENCE. And yield sensitivity correction factor show each gamma camera's relative sensitivity ratio by yielded based on ECAM's sensitivity. (ECAM plus 1.07, ECAM signature 1.05, SYMBIA T2 1.03, ECAM 1.00, BRIGHTVIEW 0.90, INFINIA 0.83, PRECEDENCE 0.72) When analyzing the correction factor yielded by $^{99m}Tc$ experiment and another correction factor yielded by whole body bone scan, it shows statistically insignificant value (p<0.05) in whole body bone scan diagnosis. Conclusion: In diagnosing the bone metastasis of patients undergoing cancer, whole body bone scan has been conducted as follow up tests due to its good points (high sensitivity, non invasive, easily conducted). But as a follow up study, it's hard to perform whole body bone scan continuously using same gamma camera. If we use same gamma camera to patients, we have to consider effectiveness of equipment's change by time elapsed. So we expect that applying sensitivity correction factor to patients who tested whole body bone scan regularly will add consistence in diagnosis of patients.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.171-178
• /
• 2016

Purpose : In order to minimize the dose of femoral head as an appropriate treatment plan for rectal cancer radiation therapy, we compare and evaluate the usefulness of 3-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 3fCRT), which is a universal treatment method, and 5-field 3D conformal radiation therapy(below 5fCRT), and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods : The 10 cases of rectal cancer that treated with 21EX were enrolled. Those cases were planned by Eclipse(Ver. 10.0.42, Varian, USA), PRO3(Progressive Resolution Optimizer 10.0.28) and AAA(Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm Ver. 10.0.28). 3fCRT and 5fCRT plan has $0^{\circ}$, $270^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $0^{\circ}$, $95^{\circ}$, $45^{\circ}$, $315^{\circ}$, $265^{\circ}$ gantry angle, respectively. VMAT plan parameters consisted of 15MV coplanar $360^{\circ}$ 1 arac. Treatment prescription was employed delivering 54Gy to recum in 30 fractions. To minimize the dose difference that shows up randomly on optimizing, VMAT plans were optimized and calculated twice, and normalized to the target V100%=95%. The indexes of evaluation are D of Both femoral head and aceta fossa, total MU, H.I.(Homogeneity index) and C.I.(Conformity index) of the PTV. All VMAT plans were verified by gamma test with portal dosimetry using EPID. Results : D of Rt. femoral head was 53.08 Gy, 50.27 Gy, and 30.92 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. D of Rt. aceta fossa was 54.86 Gy, 52.40 Gy, 30.37 Gy, respectively, in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. Likewise, Lt. Femoral head showed average 53.68 Gy, 51.01 Gy and 29.23 Gy in the same order. The maximum dose of both femoral head and aceta fossa was higher in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. C.I. showed the lowest VMAT treatment plan with an average of 1.64, 1.48, and 0.99 in the order of 3fCRT, 5fCRT, and VMAT treatment plan. There was no significant difference on H.I. of the PTV among three plans. Total MU showed that the VMAT treatment plan used 124.4MU and 299MU more than the 3fCRT and 5fCRT treatment plan, respectively. IMRT verification gamma test results for the VMAT plan passed over 90.0% at 2mm/2%. Conclusion : In rectal cancer treatment, the VMAT plan was shown to be advantageous in most of the evaluation indexes compared to the 3D plan, and the dose of the femoral head was greatly reduced. However, because of practical limitations there may be a case where it is difficult to select a VMAT treatment plan. 5fCRT has the advantage of reducing the dose of the femoral head as compared to the existing 3fCRT, without regard to additional problems. Therefore, not only would it extend survival time but the quality of life in general, if hospitals improved radiation therapy efficiency by selecting the treatment plan in accordance with the hospital's situation.