Dose Volume Histogram Analysis for Comparison of Usability of Linear Accelerator Flattening Filter
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The wedge filter has two movements, fixed and dynamic. In this study, the depth dose distribution was analyzed to determine the stability of the dose distribution and dose volume histograms obtained by evaluating the usability of the critical normal tissue dose around the tumor dose. The depth dose was analyzed from the dose distribution from a Linac (6 MV and 10 MV irradiation field of energy 20×20 cm2, wedge filter with a SSD of 100 cm and 15°, 30°, 45° Y1-in (Left -7 cm), Y2-out (Right +7 cm). To analyze the fluctuations of the depth dose, a fixed wedge and dynamic wedge toe portion was examined according to the energy and angle because the size of the fluctuations was included in the error bound and did not show significant differences. The neck, breast, and pelvic dosimetry in tumor tissue are measured more commonly with a dynamic wedge than a fixed wedge presumably due to the error range. On the other hand, dosimetry of the surrounding normal tissue is more common using a fixed wedge than with a dynamic wedge.
Abstract
The wedge filter has two movements, fixed and dynamic. In this study, the depth dose distribution was analyzed to determine the stability of the dose distribution and dose volume histograms obtained by evaluating the usability of the critical normal tissue dose around the tumor dose. The depth dose was analyzed from the dose distribution from a Linac (6 MV and 10 MV irradiation field of energy 20×20 cm2, wedge filter with a SSD of 100 cm and 15°, 30°, 45° Y1-in (Left -7 cm), Y2-out (Right +7 cm). To analyze the fluctuations of the depth dose, a fixed wedge and dynamic wedge toe portion was examined according to the energy and angle because the size of the fluctuations was included in the error bound and did not show significant differences. The neck, breast, and pelvic dosimetry in tumor tissue are measured more commonly with a dynamic wedge than a fixed wedge presumably due to the error range. On the other hand, dosimetry of the surrounding normal tissue is more common using a fixed wedge than with a dynamic wedge.
참고문헌 (11)
- Cheng CW, "A computer-aided treatment planning technique for universal wedges", Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys, 13(12), pp.1927~1935 (1987)
- Cross P, "Tangential breast irradiation: simple improvements", Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys, 23(2), pp.433~442 (1992)
- Cumberlin RL, "Carcinogenic effects of scattered dose associated with radiation therapy", Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys, 17(3), pp.623~629 (1989)
- Khan FM, "Dosimetry of asymmetric x-ray collimators", Med. Phys, 13(6), pp.936~941 (1986)
- Kijewski PK, "Wedge-shaped dose distributions by computer-controlled collimator motion", Med. Phys, 5(5), pp.426~429 (1978)
- Klein EE, "Dosimetry and clinical implementation of dynamic wedge", Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys, 31(3), pp.583~592 (1995)
- Li Z, "Suface and peripheral doses of dynamic and physical wedges", Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys, 37(4), pp.921~925 (1997)
- Marks LB, "Use of normal tissue complication probability models in the clinic", Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys, 76(3), pp.10~19 (2010)
- Oh YT, "Dosimetric characteristics of dynamic wedge technique", J. Korean Soc. Ther. Radial. Oncol, 14(4), pp.323~332 (1996)
- Petti PL, "Effective wedge angles with a universal wedge", Phys. Med. Biol, 30(9), pp.985~991 (1985)
- Prabhakar R, "Comparison of contralateral breast dose for various tangential field techniques in clinical radiotherapy", Technol. Cancer Res. Treat, 6(2), pp.135~138 (2007)