• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.127-135
• /
• 2014

Purpose : By taking advantage of each imaging modality, the use of fused CT/MRI image has increased in prostate cancer radiation therapy. However, fusion uncertainty may cause partial target miss or normal organ overdose. In order to complement such limitation, our hospital acquired MRI image (Planning MRI) by setting up patients with the same fixing tool and posture as CT simulation. This study aims to evaluate the usefulness of the Planning MRI through comparing and analyzing the diagnostic MRI image and Planning MRI image. Materials and Methods : This study targeted 10 patients who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and prescribed nonhormone and definitive RT 70 Gy/28 fx from August 2011 to July 2013. Each patient had both CT and MRI simulations. The MRI images were acquired within one half hour after the CT simulation. The acquired CT/MRI images were fused primarily based on bony structure matching. This study measured the volume of prostate in the images of Planning MRI and diagnostic MRI. The diameters at the craniocaudal, anteroposterior and left-to-right directions from the center of prostate were measured in order to compare changes in the shape of prostate. Results : As a result of comparing the volume of prostate in the images of Planning MRI and diagnostic MRI, they were found to be $25.01cm^3$(range $15.84-34.75cm^3$) and $25.05cm^3$(range $15.28-35.88cm^3$) on average respectively. The diagnostic MRI had an increase of 0.12 % as compared with the Planning MRI. On the planning MRI, there was an increase in the volume by $7.46cm^3$(29 %) at the transition zone directions, and there was a decrease in the volume by $8.52cm^3$(34 %) in the peripheral zone direction. As a result of measuring the diameters at the craniocaudal, anteroposterior and left-to-right directions in the prostate, the Planning MRI was found to have on average 3.82cm, 2.38cm and 4.59cm respectively and the diagnostic MRI was found to have on average 3.37cm, 2.76cm and 4.51cm respectively. All three prostate diameters changed and the change was significant in the Planning MRI. On average, the anteroposterior prostate diameter decrease by 0.38cm(13 %). The mean right-to-left and craniocaudal diameter increased by 0.08cm(1.6 %) and 0.45cm(13 %), respectively. Conclusion : Based on the results of this study, it was found that the total volumes of prostate in the Planning MRI and the diagnostic MRI were not significantly different. However, there was a change in the shape and partial volume of prostate due to the insertion of prostate balloon tube to the rectum. Thus, if the Planning MRI images were used when conducting the fusion of CT/MRI images, it would be possible to include the target in the CTV without a loss as much as the increased volume in the transition zone. Also, it would be possible to reduce the radiation dose delivered to the rectum through separating more clearly the reduction of peripheral zone volume. Therefore, the author of this study believes that acquisition of Planning MRI image should be made to ensure target delineation and localization accuracy.

• 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.