Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
KMID : 1164220140260020217
Journal of Korean Society for Radiotherapeutic Technology
2014 Volume.26 No. 2 p.217 ~ p.224
Comparison treatment planning with the measured change the dose of each Junction section according to the error of setup CSI Treatment with Conventional, IMRT, VMAT
Lee Ho-Jin

Jeon Chang-Woo
Ahn Bum-Suk
Yoo Suk-Hyun
Park So-Yeon
Abstract
Purpose : Conventional, IMRT, at CSI treatment with VMAT, this study compare the treatment plan with dose changes
measured at Junction field according to the error of Setup.

Materials and Methods : This study established Conventional, the IMRT, VMAT treatment planning for CSI therapy using the Eclipse 10.0 (Eclipse10.0, Varian, USA) and chose person in Seoul National University Hospital. Verification plan was also created to apply IMRT QA phantom for each treatment plan to the film measurements. At this time, the error of Setup was applied to the 2, 4, 6mm respectively with the head and foot direction. ¡°( +¡±direction of the head,¡° -¡±means that the foot
direction ¡°.) Using IMRT QA Phantom and EBT2 film, was investigated by placing the error of Setup for each Junction. We
check the consistency of the measured Film and plan dose distribution by gamma index (Gamma index, ¥ã) . In addition, we compared the error of Setup by the dose distribution, and analyzing the uniformity of the dose distribution within the target by calculating the Homogeneity Index (HI).

Results : It was figured out that 90.49%-gamma index we obtained with film is agreement with film scan score and dose
distribution of treatment plan. Also, depend on the dose distribution on distance, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the head direction, it showed that 3.1, 4.5, 8.1 at *Diff(%) of Conventional, 1.1, 3.5, 6.3 at IMRT, and 1.6, 2.5, 5.7 at VMAT. In the same way, if we make the error of Setup 2, 4, 6mm in the foot direction, it showed that -1.6, -2.8, -4.4 at *Diff(%) of Conventional, -0.9, -1.6, -2.9 at IMRT, and -0.5, -2.2, -2.5 at VMAT. Homogeneity Index(HI)s are 1.216 at Conventional, 1.095 at IMRT and 1.069 at VMAT.

Discussion and Conclusion : The dose-change depend on the error of Setup at the CSI RT(radiation therapy) using IMRT and VMAT which have advantages, Dose homogeneity and the gradual dose gradients on the Junction part is lower than that of Conventional CSI RT. This a little change of dose means that there is less danger on patients despite of the error of Setup generated at the CSI RT.
KEYWORD
FullTexts / Linksout information
 
Listed journal information