• 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.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.401-406
• /
• 2008

The aim of this study is to evaluate contra-lateral breast (CLB) surface dose in Field-in-Field (FIF) technique for breast conserving surgery patients. For evaluation of surface dose in FIF technique, we have compared with other techniques, which were open fields (Open), metal wedge (MW), and enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) techniques under same geometrical condition and prescribed dose. The three dimensional treatment planning system was used for dose optimization. For the verification of dose calculation, measurements using MOSFET detectors with Anderson Rando phantom were performed. The measured points for four different techniques were at the depth of 0cm (epidermis) and 0.5cm bolus (dermis), and spacing toward 2cm, 4cm, 6cm, 8cm, 10cm apart from the edge of tangential medial beam. The dose calculations were done in 0.25cm grid resolution by modified Batho method for inhomogeneity correction. In the planning results, the surface doses were differentiated in the range of $19.6{\sim}36.9%$, $33.2{\sim}138.2%$ for MW, $1.0{\sim}7.9%$, $1.6{\sim}37.4%$ for EDW, and for FIF at the depth of epidermis and dermis as compared to Open respectively. In the measurements, the surface doses were differentiated in the range of $11.1{\sim}71%$, $22.9{\sim}161%$ for MW, $4.1{\sim}15.5%$, $8.2{\sim}37.9%$ for EDW, and 4.9% for FIF at the depth of epidermis and dermis as compared to Open respectively. The surface doses were considered as underestimating in the planning calculation as compared to the measurement with MOSFET detectors. Was concluded as the lowest one among the techniques, even if it was compared with Open method. Our conclusion could be stated that the FIF technique could make the optimum dose distribution in Breast target, while effectively reduce the probability of secondary carcinogenesis due to undesirable scattered radiation to contra-lateral breast.