Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¼¼±âÁ¶Àý¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·áÀÇ È¯ÀÚº° Á¤µµ°ü¸®¸¦ À§ÇÑ 2Â÷¿øÀû ¼±·®°èÀÇ À¯¿ë¼º Æò°¡

Comparison of the Efficacy of 2D Dosimetry Systems in the Pre-treatment Verification of IMRT

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 27±Ç 2È£ p.91 ~ 102
ȫä¼±, ¾È¿ëÂù, ÇÑ¿µÀÌ, ½ÅÀºÇõ, ÁÖ»ó±Ô, ÀÓÁ¾¼ö,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ȫä¼± ( Hong Chae-Seon ) - ¼º±Õ°ü´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
¾È¿ëÂù ( Ahn Yong-Chan ) - ¼º±Õ°ü´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
ÇÑ¿µÀÌ ( Han Young-Yih ) - ¼º±Õ°ü´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
½ÅÀºÇõ ( Shin Eun-Hyuk ) - ¼º±Õ°ü´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
ÁÖ»ó±Ô ( Ju Sang-Gyu ) - ¼º±Õ°ü´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
ÀÓÁ¾¼ö ( Lim Jong-soo ) - °æ±â´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇй°¸®Çаú

Abstract

¸ñÀû: ¼¼±âÁ¶Àý¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¿¡ À־ Ä¡·á Àü ȯÀÚº° Á¤µµ°ü¸®(QA)¿¡ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â EDR2 Çʸ§°ú2Â÷¿ø ÀÌ¿ÂÀü¸®ÇԹ迭(MatriXX), ±×¸®°í ÀüÀÚÆ÷Å»¿µ»óÀåÄ¡(EPID)¿¡ ´ëÇØ Àý´ë¼±·®°è¿Í »ó´ë¼±·®°è·Î¼­ÀÇ Á¤È®µµ¿Í È¿À²¼ºÀ» Æò°¡Çß´Ù.

´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý: 6 MV X-¼±À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© µÎ °¡Áö À¯Çü(±âÁØ Á¶»ç¸é, ¿ÀÂ÷ Æò°¡ Á¶»ç¸é)ÀÇ ¼¼±âÁ¶Àý Á¶»ç¸éÀ» ¼³°èÇϰí EDR2 Çʸ§, MatriXX, EPID¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© Àý´ë¼±·®°ú »ó´ëÀû ¼±·®ºÐÆ÷¸¦ ºñ±³, ºÐ¼®Çß´Ù. ¼¼ ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ Àý´ë¼±·® Á¤È®¼ºÀ» Æò°¡Çϱâ À§ÇØ ¼¼ ½Ã½ºÅÛÀÇ ¼±·® ÃøÁ¤°ª°ú Àü¸®ÇÔ ÃøÁ¤°ªÀ» ºñ±³Çß°í, »ó´ëÀû ¼±·®ºÐÆ÷ Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇØ ±âÁØ Á¶»ç¸é°ú ÀǵµÀûÀ¸·Î MLC leaf À§Ä¡¸¦ º¯Çü½ÃŲ ¿ÀÂ÷ Æò°¡ Á¶»ç¸é¿¡¼­ °¨¸¶(¥ã)°ª°ú Á¶»ç¸é ¼öÁ÷ ÇÁ·ÎÆÄÀÏÀ» ºÐ¼®Çß´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, ȯÀÚº° QA Àü °úÁ¤À» ¼öÇàÇϴµ¥ ¼Ò¿äµÇ´Â ½Ã°£À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿© ½Ã½ºÅÛ¿¡ µû¸¥ ¾÷¹« ºÎÇϸ¦ ºñ±³Çß´Ù.

°á°ú:EDR2 Çʸ§, MatriXX, ±×¸®°í EPIDÀÇ Àý´ë¼±·® ÃøÁ¤°ª°ú Àü¸®ÇÔ ÃøÁ¤°ªÀ» ºñ±³ÇÑ °á°ú EPID´Â 1%, MatriXX´Â
2%, EDR2 Çʸ§Àº 3% À̳»ÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷ ÃøÁ¤ Á¤È®µµ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. EDR2 Çʸ§°ú EPID´Â Çã¿ë±âÁØ 3%/3 mm¿Í 2%/2 mm ¸ðµÎ¿¡¼­ °¨¸¶°ªÀÌ 1À» ÃʰúÇÏ´Â È­¼Ò(¥ã%£¾1)°¡ Àüü È­¼ÒÀÇ 2% À̳»¿´´Ù. ±×·¯³ª MatriXXÀÇ °æ¿ì 3%/3 mm¿¡¼­ ´Â 1% À̳»ÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷¸¦ º¸¿´À¸³ª 2%/2 mm¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÑ 10¡¿20 cm2¿Í 10¡¿10 cm2¿¡¼­´Â °¢°¢ 5.94%¿Í 4.95%·Î Áõ°¡Çß´Ù. ¼¼ ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº ¿ÀÂ÷ Æò°¡ Á¶»ç¸éÀÇ ¼±·® ºÐÆ÷¸¦ Ä¡·á°èȹ ÀåÄ¡·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾òÀº ±âÁØ Á¶»ç¸é°ú ÁßøÇÏ¿© °¨¸¶ ºÐ¼®ÇÑ °á°ú, 3%/3 mm¿¡¼­ EDR2 Çʸ§ÀÌ ?4 mmÀÇ MLC leaf ¿ÀÂ÷ ½Äº°ÀÌ °¡´ÉÇß°í EPID´Â ?3 mm ¿ÀÂ÷¸¦ °¨ÁöÇß´Ù. 2%/2 mmÀÇ °æ¿ì, EDR2 Çʸ§°ú EPID¿¡¼­ °¢°¢ ?3 mm¿Í ?2 mmÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷ ½Äº°ÀÌ °¡´ÉÇß´Ù. ±×·¯³ª MatriXXÀÇ °æ¿ì °æ°è°¡ ºÒºÐ¸íÇØ ¿ÀÂ÷ ±¸ºÐÀÌ ¾î·Á¿ü´Ù. ȯÀÚº° QA Àü °úÁ¤À» ¼öÇàÇϴµ¥ ¼Ò¿äµÇ´Â ½Ã°£Àº EDR2 Çʸ§ÀÌ ¾à 110ºÐ, MatriXX°¡ ¾à 80ºÐ, EPID°¡ ¾à 55ºÐÀ̾ú´Ù.

°á·Ð: º» ¿¬±¸´Â IMRTÀÇ Ä¡·á Àü ȯÀÚº° QA¸¦ À§ÇÑ EDR2 Çʸ§, MatriXX, ±×¸®°í EPIDÀÇ ÃøÁ¤ Á¤È®µµ¿Í È¿À²¼ºÀ»
ºÐ¼®Çß´Ù. EDR2 Çʸ§°ú EPID´Â ¼±·® ÃøÁ¤ Á¤È®µµ°¡ ¿ì¼öÇßÀ¸¸ç, MatriXX´Â ÃøÁ¤ ½Ã°£ÀÌ Âª¾Ò´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸ °á°ú´Â ÀÓ
»ó¿¡¼­ È¿À²ÀûÀÎ IMRT QA ½Ã½ºÅÛÀ» ±¸ÃàÇϴµ¥ ÁÁÀº ÀÚ·á°¡ µÉ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢ÇÑ´Ù.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy and efficacy of EDR2 film, a 2D ionization chamber array (MatriXX) and an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in the pre-treatment QA of IMRT.

Materials and Methods : Fluence patterns, shaped as a wedge with 10 steps (segments) by a multi-leaf collimator (MLC), of reference and test IMRT fields were measured using EDR2 film, the MatriXX, and EPID. Test fields were designed to simulate leaf positioning errors. The absolute dose at a point in each step of the reference fields was measured in a water phantom with an ionization chamber and was compared to the dose obtained with the use of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID. For qualitative analysis, all measured fluence patterns of both reference and test fields were compared with calculated dose maps from a radiation treatment planning system (Pinnacle, Philips, USA) using profiles and ¥ã evaluation with 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. By measurement of the time to perform QA, we compared the workload of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID.

Results: The percent absolute dose difference between the measured and ionization chamber dose was within 1% for the EPID, 2% for the MatriXX and 3% for EDR2 film. The percentage of pixels with ¥ã%>1 for the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria was within 2% for use of both EDR2 film and the EPID. However, differences for the use of the MatriXX were seen with a maximum difference as great as 5.94% with the 2%/2 mm criteria. For the test fields, EDR2 film and EPID could detect leaf-positioning errors on the order of -3 mm and -2 mm, respectively. However it was difficult to differentiate leaf-positioning errors with the MatriXX due to its poor resolution. The approximate time to perform QA was 110 minutes for the use of EDR2 film, 80 minutes for the use of the MatriXX and approximately 55 minutes for the use of the EPID.

Conclusion: This study has evaluated the accuracy and efficacy of EDR2 film, the MatriXX and EPID in the pre-treatment verification of IMRT. EDR2 film and the EPID showed better performance for accuracy, while the use of the MatriXX significantly reduced measurement and analysis times. We propose practical and useful methods to establish an effective QA system in a clinical environment.

Ű¿öµå

¼¼±âÁ¶Àý¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á;Á¤µµ°ü¸®;EDR2 Çʸ§;2Â÷¿ø ÀÌ¿ÂÀü¸®ÇԹ迭;ÀüÀÚÆ÷Å»¿µ»óÀåÄ¡
IMRT;QA;EDR2 film;MatriXX; EPID

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS