• Journal of Bio-Environment Control
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.78-85
• /
• 2019

This study was designed to examine the performance of an aspirated radiation shield(ARS), which was made at the investigator's lab and characterized by relatively easier making and lower costs based on survey data and reports on errors in its measurements of temperature and relative humidity. The findings were summarized as follows: the ARS and the Jinju weather station made measurements and recorded the range of maximum, average, and minimum temperature at $2.0{\sim}34.1^{\circ}C$, $-6.1{\sim}22.2^{\circ}C$, $-14.0{\sim}15.1^{\circ}C$ and $0.4{\sim}31.5^{\circ}C$, $-5.8{\sim}22.0^{\circ}C$, $-14.1{\sim}16.3^{\circ}C$, respectively. There were no big differences in temperature measurements between the two institutions except that the lowest and highest point of maximum temperature was higher on the campus by $1.6^{\circ}C$ and $2.6^{\circ}C$, respectively. The measurements of ARS were tested against those of a standard thermometer. The results show that the temperature measured by ARS was lower by $-2.0^{\circ}C$ or higher by $1.8^{\circ}C$ than the temperature measured by a standard thermometer. The analysis results of its correlations with a standard thermometer reveal that the coefficient of determination was 0.99. Temperature was compared between fans and no fans, and the results show that maximum, average, and minimum temperature was higher overall with no fans by $0.5{\sim}7.6^{\circ}C$, $0.3{\sim}4.6^{\circ}C$ and $0.5{\sim}3.9^{\circ}C$, respectively. The daily average relative humidity measurements were compared between ARS and the weather station of Jinju, and the results show that the measurements of ARS were a little bit higher than those of the Jinju weather station. The measurements on June 27, July 26 and 29, and August 20 were relatively higher by 5.7%, 5.2%, 9.1%, and 5.8%, respectively, but differences in the monthly average between the two institutions were trivial at 2.0~3.0%. Relative humidity was in the range of -3.98~+7.78% overall based on measurements with ARS and Assman's psychometer. The study analyzed correlations in relative humidity between the measurements of the Jinju weather station and those of Assman's psychometer and found high correlations between them with the coefficient of determination at 0.94 and 0.97, respectively.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.93-109
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The radiochromic film (Gafchromic EBT3, Ashland Advanced Materials, USA) and 3-dimensional analysis system dosimetry checkTM (DC, MathResolutions, USA) were evaluated for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) of helical tomotherapy. Materials and Methods: Depending on the tumors' positions, three types of targets, which are the abdominal tumor (130.6㎤), retroperitoneal tumor (849.0㎤), and the whole abdominal metastasis tumor (3131.0㎤) applied to the humanoid phantom (Anderson Rando Phantom, USA). We established a total of 12 comparative treatment plans by the four geometric conditions of the beam irradiation, which are the different field widths (FW) of 2.5-cm, 5.0-cm, and pitches of 0.287, 0.43. Ionization measurements (1D) with EBT3 by inserting the cheese phantom (2D) were compared to DC measurements of the 3D dose reconstruction on CT images from beam fluence log information. For the clinical feasibility evaluation of the DC, dose reconstruction has been performed using the same cheese phantom with the EBT3 method. Recalculated dose distributions revealed the dose error information during the actual irradiation on the same CT images quantitatively compared to the treatment plan. The Thread effect, which might appear in the Helical Tomotherapy, was analyzed by ripple amplitude (%). We also performed gamma index analysis (DD: 3mm/ DTA: 3%, pass threshold limit: 95%) for pattern check of the dose distribution. Results: Ripple amplitude measurement resulted in the highest average of 23.1% in the peritoneum tumor. In the radiochromic film analysis, the absolute dose was on average 0.9±0.4%, and gamma index analysis was on average 96.4±2.2% (Passing rate: >95%), which could be limited to the large target sizes such as the whole abdominal metastasis tumor. In the DC analysis with the humanoid phantom for FW of 5.0-cm, the three regions' average was 91.8±6.4% in the 2D and 3D plan. The three planes (axial, coronal, and sagittal) and dose profile could be analyzed with the entire peritoneum tumor and the whole abdominal metastasis target, with planned dose distributions. The dose errors based on the dose-volume histogram in the DC evaluations increased depending on FW and pitch. Conclusion: The DC method could implement a dose error analysis on the 3D patient image data by the measured beam fluence log information only without any dosimetry tools for patient-specific quality assurance. Also, there may be no limit to apply for the tumor location and size; therefore, the DC could be useful in patient-specific QAl during the treatment of Helical Tomotherapy of large and irregular tumors.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.7-15
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In modern radiotherapy technology, several methods of image guided radiation therapy (IGRT) are used to deliver accurate doses to tumor target locations and normal organs, including CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) and other devices, ExacTrac System, other than CBCT equipped with linear accelerators. In previous studies comparing the two systems, positional errors were analysed rearwards using Offline-view or evaluated only with a Yaw rotation with the X, Y, and Z axes. In this study, when using CBCT and ExacTrac to perform 6 Degree of the Freedom(DoF) Online IGRT in a treatment center with two equipment, the difference between the set-up calibration values seen in each system, the time taken for patient set-up, and the radiation usefulness of the imaging device is evaluated. Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the difference between mobile calibrations and exposure radiation dose, the glass dosimetry and Rando Phantom were used for 11 cancer patients with head circumference from March to October 2017 in order to assess the difference between mobile calibrations and the time taken from Set-up to shortly before IGRT. CBCT and ExacTrac System were used for IGRT of all patients. An average of 10 CBCT and ExacTrac images were obtained per patient during the total treatment period, and the difference in 6D Online Automation values between the two systems was calculated within the ROI setting. In this case, the area of interest designation in the image obtained from CBCT was fixed to the same anatomical structure as the image obtained through ExacTrac. The difference in positional values for the six axes (SI, AP, LR; Rotation group: Pitch, Roll, Rtn) between the two systems, the total time taken from patient set-up to just before IGRT, and exposure dose were measured and compared respectively with the RandoPhantom. Results: the set-up error in the phantom and patient was less than 1mm in the translation group and less than 1.5° in the rotation group, and the RMS values of all axes except the Rtn value were less than 1mm and 1°. The time taken to correct the set-up error in each system was an average of 256±47.6sec for IGRT using CBCT and 84±3.5sec for ExacTrac, respectively. Radiation exposure dose by IGRT per treatment was measured at 37 times higher than ExacTrac in CBCT and ExacTrac at 2.468mGy and 0.066mGy at Oral Mucosa among the 7 measurement locations in the head and neck area. Conclusion: Through 6D online automatic positioning between the CBCT and ExacTrac systems, the set-up error was found to be less than 1mm, 1.02°, including the patient's movement (random error), as well as the systematic error of the two systems. This error range is considered to be reasonable when considering that the PTV Margin is 3mm during the head and neck IMRT treatment in the present study. However, considering the changes in target and risk organs due to changes in patient weight during the treatment period, it is considered to be appropriately used in combination with CBCT.