• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.275-286
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To setup procedures of quality assurance (OA) for implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) clinically, report OA procedures peformed for one patient with prostate cancer. Materials and methods : $P^3IMRT$ (ADAC) and linear accelerator (Siemens) with multileaf collimator are used to implement IMRT. At first, the positional accuracy, reproducibility of MLC, and leaf transmission factor were evaluated. RTP commissioning was peformed again to consider small field effect. After RTP recommissioning, a test plan of a C-shaped PTV was made using 9 intensity modulated beams, and the calculated isocenter dose was compared with the measured one in solid water phantom. As a patient-specific IMRT QA, one patient with prostate cancer was planned using 6 beams of total 74 segmented fields. The same beams were used to recalculate dose in a solid water phantom. Dose of these beams were measured with a 0.015 cc micro-ionization chamber, a diode detector, films, and an array detector and compared with calculated one. Results : The positioning accuracy of MLC was about 1 mm, and the reproducibility was around 0.5 mm. For leaf transmission factor for 10 MV photon beams, interleaf leakage was measured $1.9\%$ and midleaf leakage $0.9\%$ relative to $10\times\;cm^2$ open filed. Penumbra measured with film, diode detector, microionization chamber, and conventional 0.125 cc chamber showed that $80\~20\%$ penumbra width measured with a 0.125 cc chamber was 2 mm larger than that of film, which means a 0.125 cc ionization chamber was unacceptable for measuring small field such like 0.5 cm beamlet. After RTP recommissioning, the discrepancy between the measured and calculated dose profile for a small field of $1\times1\;cm^2$ size was less than $2\%$. The isocenter dose of the test plan of C-shaped PTV was measured two times with micro-ionization chamber in solid phantom showed that the errors upto $12\%$ for individual beam, but total dose delivered were agreed with the calculated within $2\%$. The transverse dose distribution measured with EC-L film was agreed with the calculated one in general. The isocenter dose for the patient measured in solid phantom was agreed within $1.5\%$. On-axis dose profiles of each individual beam at the position of the central leaf measured with film and array detector were found that at out-of-the-field region, the calculated dose underestimates about $2\%$, at inside-the-field the measured one was agreed within $3\%$, except some position. Conclusion : It is necessary more tight quality control of MLC for IMRT relative to conventional large field treatment and to develop QA procedures to check intensity pattern more efficiently. At the conclusion, we did setup an appropriate QA procedures for IMRT by a series of verifications including the measurement of absolute dose at the isocenter with a micro-ionization chamber, film dosimetry for verifying intensity pattern, and another measurement with an array detector for comparing off-axis dose profile.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.86-92
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The PET/CT has a clear distinction on the lesion of the functional image by adding anatomical information. It also could reduce the examination time using CT data as the attenuation-correction. When the stomach was contracted from a fast, it could bring a misinterpretation of the cancer of the lesion with a presence of physiological $^{18}F$-FDG uptake in stomach and it occasionally would bring an additional scan to confirm. To complement this shortcoming, the method that the patients had water before the examination to extend the stomach had been attempted. However, a short excretion time of the stomach did not give sufficiently extended image of the stomach. Then the patients had additional water and had the examination again. Therefore, the noticed fact is that the stomach excretion time depends on calories, protein content, and the level of carbohydrate. In this study, we use an orange juice to evaluate the extension of the stomach and usefulness of it. Materials and Methods: PET/CT scan were obtained on total 150 of patient from February 2008 to October2008, There were 3 groups in this study and each group had 50 patients. First group drank nothing, Second group drank water and third group drank orange juice. The patients (man 25, female 25) not drinking are the age of 30~71 years old (average: 54), the patients (man: 25, female: 25) drinking water (400 cc) are the age of 28~71 years old (average: 54) and the patients (man: 25, female: 25) drinking orange juice (400 cc) are the age of 32~74 years old (average: 56). The patients were fasted in 6-8 hours before the test, the patients were not diabetic. $^{18}F$-FDG 370~555 MBq were injected intravenously. The patients were in stable position for 1 hour, than the image was obtained. The patients drank water and other patients drank orange juice before Whole body scan. The image scan started from mid-femur to skull base. The emission scan acquired for three minutes per bed and the images were reconstructed. Stomach extension analysis is measured from vertical and horizontal length. Results: Stomach Extension was described as the vertical length of the Non Drink Group was $1.20{\pm}0.50\;cm$, horizontal length was $1.4{\pm}0.53\;cm$, the vertical length of the Water Drink Group was $1.67{\pm}0.63\;cm$, horizontal length was $1.65{\pm}0.77\;cm$, the vertical length of Orange juice Drink Group was $3.48{\pm}0.77\;cm$, horizontal length was $3.66{\pm}0.77\;cm$ in coronal image. Stomach Extension was described the vertical length of the Non Drink Group was $2.03{\pm}0.62\;cm$, horizontal length was $1.69{\pm}0.68\;cm$, the vertical length of Water Drink Group was $5.34{\pm}1.62\;cm$, horizontal length was $2.45{\pm}0.72\;cm$, the vertical length of Orange juice Drink Group was $7.74{\pm}1.62\;cm$, horizontal length was $3.57{\pm}0.77\;cm$ in transverse image. The Stomach Extension has specific differences (p<0.001). The SUVs shows the Non Drink Group were measured as Liver $2.52{\pm}0.42$, Lung $0.51{\pm}0.14$, the Water Drink Group were measured as Liver $2.47{\pm}0.38$, Lung $0.50{\pm}0.14$, Orange juice Drink Group were measured as Liver $2.47{\pm}0.38$, Lung $0.50{\pm}0.14$. The SUVs did not have specific differences (p>0.759). Conclusions: There was not a large difference of SUV in three groups. When the patients drank Orange juice and water, the range extension of stomach was higher than without drinking nothing and it was possible to acquire fully extended images. Therefore, it will be possible that unnecessary additional stomach scans will be reduced by drinking orange juice before the examination so that the patients' claim from uncomfortable and long period of fast will be minimized.