• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.271-279
• /
• 2008

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of a belly-board device (BBD) in reducing the volume of small bowel during four-field pelvic irradiation. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two cancer patients (14 uterine cervical cancer, 6 rectal cancer, and 2 endometrial cancer) scheduled to receive pelvic irradiation were selected for this study. Two sets of CT images were taken with and without the belly-board device using the Siemens 16 channel CT scanner. All patients were set in the prone position. The CT images were transferred to a treatment planning system for dose calculation and volume measurements. The external surfaces of small bowel and the bladder were contoured on all CT scans and the 4-pelvic fields were added. The dose-volume-histogram of the bladder and small bowel, with and without the BBD, were plotted and analyzed. Results: In all patients, the total small bowel volume included in the irradiated fields was reduced when the BBD was used. The mean volume reduction was 35% (range, $1{\sim}79%$) and was statistically significant (p<0.001). The reduction in small bowel volume receiving $10{\sim}100%$ of the prescribed dose was statistically significant when the BBD was used in all cases. Almost no change in the total bladder volume involved was observed in the field (<8 cc, p=0.762). However, the bladder volume receiving 90% of the prescribed dose was 100% in 15/22 patients (68%) and $90{\sim}99%$ in 7/22 patients (32%) with the BBD. In comparison, the bladder volume receiving 90% of the prescribed dose was 100% in 10/22 patients (45%), $90{\sim}99%$ in 7/22 patients (32%), and $80{\sim}89%$ in 5/22 patients (23%) without the BBD. When the BBD was used, an increase in the bladder volume receiving a high dose range was observed Conclusion: This study shows that the use of a BBD for the treatment of cancer in the pelvic area significantly improves small bowel sparing. However, since the BBD pushed the bladder into the treatment field, the bladder volume receiving the high dose could increase. Therefore it is recommended to be considerate in using the BBD when bladder damage is of concern.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.231-237
• /
• 2010

Purpose: We investigated the effect of location changes in the inferior border of the belly board (BB) aperture by adding a bladder compression device (BCD). Materials and Methods: We respectively reviewed data from 10 rectal cancer patients with a median age 64 years (range, 45~75) and who underwent computed tomography (CT) simulation with the use of BB to receive pelvic radiotherapy between May and September 2010. A CT simulation was again performed with the addition of BCD since small bowel (SB) within the irradiated volume limited boost irradiation of 5.4 Gy using the cone down technique after 45 Gy. The addition of BCD made the inferior border of BB move from symphysis pubis to the lumbosacral junction (LSJ). Results: Following the addition of BCD, the irradiated volumes of SB and the abdominopelvic cavity (APC) significantly decreased ($174.3{\pm}89.5mL$ vs. $373.3{\pm}145.0mL$, p=0.001, $1282.6{\pm}218.7mL$ vs. $1,571.9{\pm}158mL$, p<0.001, respectively). Bladder volume within the treated volume increased with BCD ($222.9{\pm}117.9mL$ vs. $153.7{\pm}95.5mL$, p<0.001). The ratio of irradiated bladder volume to APC volume with BCD ($33.5{\pm}14.7%$) increased considerably compared to patients without a BCD ($27.5{\pm}13.1%$) (p<0.001), and the ratio of irradiated SB to APC volume decreased significantly with BCD ($13.9{\pm}7.6%$ vs. $24.2{\pm}10.2%$, p<0.001). The ratios of the irradiated SB volume and irradiated bladder volume to APC volume negatively correlated (p=0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the addition of BCD, which made the inferior border of BB move up to the LSJ, increased the ratio of the bladder to APC volume and as a result, decreased the irradiated volume of SB.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.130-137
• /
• 2004

Purpose : In radiotherapy for cervix cancer, both 3-dimensioal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) could reduce the dose to the small bowel (SB), while the small bowel displacement system (SBDS) could reduce the SB volume in the pelvic cavity. To evaluate the effect of the SBDS on the dose to the SB in 3D-CRT and IMRT plans, 3D-CRT and IMRT plans, with or without SBDS, were compared. Materials and Methods : Ten consecutive uterine cervix cancer patients, receiving curative radiotherapy, were accrued. Ten pairs of computerized tomography (CT) scans were obtained in the prone position, with or without SBDS, which consisted of a Styrofoam compression device and an individualized custom-made abdominal immobilization device. Both 3D-CRT, using the 4-field box technique, and IMRT plans, with 7 portals of 15 MV X-ray, were generated for each CT image, and proscribed 50 Gy (25 fractions) to the isocenter. For the SB, the volume change due to the SBDS and the DVHs of the four different plans were analyzed using palled t-tests. Results : The SBDS significantly reduced the mean SB volume from 522 to 262 cm$^{3}$ (49.8$\%$ reduction). The SB volumes that received a dose of 10$\~$50 Gy were significantly reduced in 3D-CRT (65$\~$80$\%$ reduction) and IMRT plans (54$\~$67$\%$ reduction) using the SBDS. When the SB volumes that received 20$\~$50 Gy were compared between the 3D-CRT and IMRT plans, those of the IMRT without the SBDS were significantly less, by 6$\~$7$\%$, than those for the 3D-CRT without the SBDS, but the volume difference was less than 1$\%$ when using the SBDS. Conclusion : The SBDS reduced the radiation dose to the SB in both the 3D-CRT and IMRT plans, so could reduce the radiation injury of the SB.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.97-103
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Treating same region with different modalities there is a limit to evaluate the total absorbed dose of normal tissues. The reason is that it does not support to communication each modalities yet. In this article, it evaluates absorbed dose of the patients who had been treated same region by a tomotherapy and a linear accelerator. Materials and Methods: After reconstructing anatomic structure with a anthropomorphic phantom, administrate 45 Gy to a tumor in linac plan system as well as prescribe 15 Gy in tomotherapy plan system for make an ideal treatment plan. After the plan which made by tomoplan system transfers to the oncentra plan system for reproduce plan under the same condition and realize total treatment plan with summation 45 Gy linac treatment plan. To evaluate the absorbed dose of two different modalities, do a comparative study both a simple summation dose values and integration dose values. Then compare and analyze absorbed dose of normal tissues and a tumor with the patients who had been exposured radiation by above two differents modalities. Results: The result of compared data, in case of minimum dose, there are big different dose values in spleen (12.4%). On the other hand, in case of the maximum dose, it reports big different in a small bowel (10.2%) and a cord (5.8%) in head & neck cancer patients, there presents that oral (20.3%), right lens (7.7%) in minimum dose value. About maximum dose, it represents that spinal (22.5), brain stem (12%), optic chiasm (8.9%), Rt lens (11.5%), mandible (8.1%), pituitary gland (6.2%). In case of Rt abdominal cancer patients, there represents big different minimum dose as Lt kidney (20.3%), stomach (8.1%) about pelvic cancer patients, it reports there are big different in minimum dose as a bladder (15.2%) as well as big different value in maximum dose as a small bowel (5.6%), a bladder (5.5%) in addition, making treatment plan it is able us to get. Conclusion: In case of comparing both simple summation absorbed dose and integration absorbed dose, the minimum dose are represented higher as well as the maximum dose come out lower and the average dose are revealed similar with our expected values data. It is able to evaluate tumor & normal tissue absorbed dose which could had been not realized by treatment plan system. The DVH of interesting region are prescribed lower dose than expected. From now on, it needs to develop the new modality which are able to realize exact dose distribution as well as integration absorbed dose evaluation in same treatment region with different modalities.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.331-339
• /
• 2014

To test feasibility of proton arc therapy (PAT) in the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor and compare its dosimetric properties with advanced radiotherapy techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and conventional 3D conformal proton beam therapy (PBT). The treatment plans for para-aortic lymph node tumor were planned for 9 patients treated at our institution using IMRT, PBT, and PAT. Feasibility test and dosimetric evaluation were based on comparisons of dose volume histograms (DVHs) which reveal mean dose, $D_{30%}$, $D_{60%}$, $D_{90%}$, $V_{30%}$, $V_{60%}$, $V_{90%}$, organ equivalent doses (OEDs), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index (CI). The average doses delivered by PAT to the liver, kidney, small bowel, duodenum, stomach were 7.6%, 3%, 17.3%, 26.7%, and 14.4%, of the prescription dose (PD), respectively, which is higher than the doses delivered by IMRT (0.4%, 7.2%, 14.2%, 15.9%, and 12.8%, respectively) and PBT (4.9%, 0.5%, 14.12%, 16.1% 9.9%, respectively). The average homogeneity index and conformity index of tumor using PAT were 12.1 and 1.21, respectively which were much better than IMRT (21.5 and 1.47, respectively) and comparable to PBT (13.1 and 1.23, respectively). The result shows that both NTCP and OED of PAT are generally lower than IMRT and PBT. This study demonstrates that PAT is better in target conformity and homogeneity than IMRT and PBT but worse than IMRT and PBT for most of dosimetric factor which indicate that PAT is not recommended for the treatment of para-aortic lymph node tumor.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.157-165
• /
• 2012

Purpose: We evaluated usefulness of abdominal compressor for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients and hepato-biliary cancer and metastatic liver cancer patients. Materials and Methods: From November 2011 to March 2012, we selected HCC patients who gained reduction of diaphragm movement >1 cm through abdominal compressor (diaphragm control, elekta, sweden) for HT (Hi-Art Tomotherapy, USA). We got planning computed tomography (CT) images and 4 dimensional (4D) images through 4D CT (somatom sensation, siemens, germany). The gross tumor volume (GTV) included a gross tumor and margins considering tumor movement. The planning target volume (PTV) included a 5 to 7 mm safety margin around GTV. We classified patients into two groups according to distance between tumor and organs at risk (OAR, stomach, duodenum, bowel). Patients with the distance more than 1 cm are classified as the 1st group and they received SBRT of 4 or 5 fractions. Patients with the distance less than 1 cm are classified as the 2nd group and they received tomotherapy of 20 fractions. Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) were performed 4 or 10 fractions. When we verify a MVCT fusion considering priority to liver than bone-technique. We sent MVCT images to Mim_vista (Mimsoftware, ver .5.4. USA) and we re-delineated stomach, duodenum and bowel to bowel_organ and delineated liver. First, we analyzed MVCT images to check the setup variation. Second we compared dose difference between tumor and OAR based on adaptive dose through adaptive planning station and Mim_vista. Results: Average setup variation from MVCT was $-0.66{\pm}1.53$ mm (left-right) $0.39{\pm}4.17$ mm (superior-inferior), $0.71{\pm}1.74$ mm (anterior-posterior), $-0.18{\pm}0.30$ degrees (roll). 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1) were similar to setup variation. 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) of $V_{diff3%}$ (volume of 3% difference of dose) of GTV through adaptive planing station was $0.78{\pm}0.05%$, PTV was $9.97{\pm}3.62%$, $V_{diff5%}$ was GTV 0.0%, PTV was $2.9{\pm}0.95%$, maximum dose difference rate of bowel_organ was $-6.85{\pm}1.11%$. 2nd Group (d<1) GTV of $V_{diff3%}$ was $1.62{\pm}0.55%$, PTV was $8.61{\pm}2.01%$, $V_{diff5%}$ of GTV was 0.0%, PTV was $5.33{\pm}2.32%$, maximum dose difference rate of bowel_organ was $28.33{\pm}24.41%$. Conclusion: Despite we saw diaphragm movement more than 5 mm with flouroscopy after use an abdominal compressor, average setup_variation from MVCT was less than 5 mm. Therefore, we could estimate the range of setup_error within a 5 mm. Target's dose difference rate of 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1) were similar, while 1st group ($d{\geq}1$) and 2nd group (d<1)'s bowel_organ's maximum dose difference rate's maximum difference was more than 35%, 1st group ($d{\geq}1$)'s bowel_organ's maximum dose difference rate was smaller than 2nd group (d<1). When applicating SBRT to HCC, abdominal compressor is useful to control diaphragm movement in selected patients with more than 1 cm bowel_organ distance.