scholarly journals PENATALAKSAAN RADIOTERAPI KANKER OVARIUM DENGAN TEKNIK IMRT DI RUMAH SAKIT X

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-26
Author(s):  
Diah Novita ◽  
Nursama Heru Apriantoro
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Ct Scan ◽  
Linear Accelerator ◽  
Bone Scan ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Electronic Portal Imaging Device ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Intensity Modulated

ABSTRAK Penelitian ini di latar belakangi oleh penyakit keganasan yaitu kanker ovarium yang merupakan kanker ginekologis terbanyak kedua yang diderita dan seringkali baru ditemukan ketika sudah stadium lanjut. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui dan mendeskripsikan prosedur penyinaran radioterapi menggunakan teknik IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy) di Instalasi Radioterapi Rumah Sakit X yang merupakan salah satu modalitas pengobatan kanker ovarium. Metode yang digunakan pada penelitian ini adalah kualitatif deskriptif dengan menggunakan satu sampel primer pada kasus kanker ovarium yang menggunakan teknik IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy), sampel ini diambil dari seluruh populasi kanker ovarium di Instalasi Radioterapi Rumah Sakit X. Instrumen penelitian yang digunakan berupa studi kepustakaan, observasi langsung, wawancara serta dokumentasi. Penelitian ini dilakukan pada bulan Mei 2021 di Instalasi Radioterapi Rumah Sakit X. Hasil yang dapat disimpulkan pada penelitian ini adalah prosedur penatalaksanaan radioterapi untuk kasus kanker ovarium menggunakan teknik IMRT (Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy) di Instalasi Radioterapi Rumah Sakit X meliputi beberapa prosedur yaitu: administrasi dengan membawa dokumen penunjang seperti hasil CT Scan/MRI/Bone Scan/USG, kemudian pasien melakukan konsultasi dengan dokter onkologi radiasi, melakukan persiapan-persiapan pasien, persiapan alat dan bahan, scanning di CT Simulator, proses perencanaan radiasi yang dilakukan di Treatment Planning System (TPS), proses verifikasi menggunakan alat verifikasi yaitu Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) dan yang terakhir adalah penyinaran radiasi di ruang penyinaran dengan menggunakan pesawat radioterapi Linear Accelerator (LINAC) Elekta Synergy Platform.

Comparison of Gamma Analyses with using Different Dosimetric Systems for Pre-Treatment Verification of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gokcen Inan ◽  
Osman Vefa Gul
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Linear Accelerator ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Array Detector ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Treatment Plans ◽  
2D Array

Purpose: The evaluation of the agreement between calculated and measured dose plays an essential role in the quality assurance (QA) procedures of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This study aimed to compare gamma analysis using Portal Dosimetry (PD), Epiqa, and 2D array detector for dose verification of radiotherapy treatment plans. Materials and Methods: Five fields step-and-shoot IMRT plan was used to performed for 20 prostate IMRT patients using the dual-energy DHX linear accelerator (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The treatment plans were created using Varian DHX Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) version 15.1. All measurements were performed by aS500 EPID integrated into Varian DHX linear accelerator and 2D array detector. The dose distribution was evaluated with gamma area histograms (GAHs) generated using different γ criteria (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm) for dose agreement and distance to agreement parameters. Statistical analyses were evaluated by using Mann Whitney Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test, and p-value of p <0.01 was considered to be significant. Results: The average pass rate for 20 IMRT plans was above 95% for all devices with 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm. The mean and standard deviation passing rates (γ ≤1) were found to be 99.80±0.19, 99.35±0.34 and 97.53±0.71 for PD, Epiqa and 2D array respectively. All IMRT plans passed 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm gamma by more than 95% of three dosimetric systems. They are all in good agreement with the literature. Conclusion: All three devices are acceptable for quality control of IMRT. Due to the simplicity and fast evaluation process, PD can be preferred for quality control.

Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment planning: a dosimetric comparison

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 396-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saima Altaf ◽  
Khalid Iqbal ◽  
Muhammad Akram ◽  
Saeed A. Buzdar
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Passing Rates

AbstractAimThe purpose of this study was to analyse the comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) using Gafchromic® EBT3 film, Electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and MapCHECK®2.BackgroundPretreatment authentication is the main apprehension in advanced radiation therapy treatment plans such as IMRT.Materials and methodsA total of 20 patients were planned on Eclipse treatment planning system using 6 and 15 MV separately.ResultsGamma index of EBT3 film results shows the following average passing rates: 97% for 6 MV and 96·6% for 15 MV using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm for brain. However, by using ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm criteria, the average passing rates were 95·4% on 6 MV and 95·2% on 15 MV for prostate. For EPID, the results show the average passing rates as 97·8% for 6 MV and 97·2% for 15 MV in for brain. In cases in which ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm were used, the average passing rates were 96·6% for 6 MVand 96·1% for 15 MV for prostate. MapCHECK®2 results show average passing rates of 96·4% for 6 and 96·2% for 15 MV, respectively, for brain using criteria of ±5% of 3 mm, ±3% of 3 mm and ±3% of 2 mm, whereas for ±5% of 3 mm and ±3% of 3 mm the average rates are 95·2% for 6 and 94·7% for 15 MV in prostate.ConclusionsThe EPID results are better than the other methods, and hence EPID can be used effectively for IMRT pretreatment verifications.

scholarly journals Dosimetric Studies of Mixed Energy Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Treatments

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Abdul Haneefa ◽  
K. K. Shakir ◽  
A. Siddhartha ◽  
T. Siji Cyriac ◽  
M. M. Musthafa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Mixed Beam ◽  
Mixed Field

Dosimetric studies of mixed field photon beam intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer using pencil beam (PB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithms using Oncentra MasterPlan treatment planning system (v. 4.3) are investigated in this study. Three different plans were generated using 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed beam (both 6 and 15 MV). Fifteen patients with two sets of plans were generated: one by using PB and the other by using CCC for the same planning parameters and constraints except the beam energy. For each patient’s plan of high energy photons, one set of photoneutron measurements using solid state neutron track detector (SSNTD) was taken for this study. Mean percentage of V66 Gy in the rectum is 18.55±2.8, 14.58±2.1, and 16.77±4.7 for 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed-energy plans, respectively. Mean percentage of V66 Gy in bladder is 16.54±2.1, 17.42±2.1, and 16.94±41.9 for 6 MV, 15 MV, and mixed-energy plans, respectively. Mixed fields neutron contribution at the beam entrance surface is 45.62% less than at 15 MV photon beam. Our result shows that, with negligible neutron contributions, mixed field IMRT has considerable dosimetric advantage.

Quality assurance of linear accelerator: a comprehensive system using electronic portal imaging device

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (02) ◽  
pp. 138-149
Author(s):  
P. Niyas ◽  
K. K. Abdullah ◽  
M. P. Noufal ◽  
R. Vysakh
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Linear Accelerator ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Array Detector ◽  
Electronic Portal Imaging Device ◽  
Imaging Device ◽  
Portal Imaging ◽  
Electronic Portal Imaging

AbstractAimThe Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID), primarily used for patient setup during radiotherapy sessions is also used for dosimetric measurements. In the present study, the feasibility of EPID in both machine and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) are investigated. We have developed a comprehensive software tool for effective utilisation of EPID in our institutional QA protocol.Materials and methodsPortal Vision aS1000, amorphous silicon portal detector attached to Clinac iX—Linear Accelerator (LINAC) was used to measure daily profile and output constancy, various Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) checks and patient plan verification. Different QA plans were generated with the help of Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) and MLC shaper software. The indigenously developed MATLAB programs were used for image analysis. Flatness, symmetry, output constancy, Field Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) and fluence comparison were studied from images obtained from TPS and EPID dosimetry.ResultsThe 3 years institutional data of profile constancy and patient-specific QA measured using EPID were found within the acceptable limits. The daily output of photon beam correlated with the output obtained through solid phantom measurements. The Pearson correlation coefficients are 0.941 (p = 0.0001), 0.888 (p = 0.0188) and 0.917 (p = 0.0007) for the years of 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. The accuracy of MLC for shaping complex treatment fields was studied in terms of FWHM at different portions of various fields, showed good agreement between TPS-generated and EPID-measured MLC positions. The comparison of selected patient plans in EPID with an independent 2D array detector system showed statistically significant correlation between these two systems. Percentage difference between TPS computed and EPID measured fluence maps calculated for number of patients using MATLAB code also exhibited the validity of those plans for treatment.

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Nguyen Thi Lan ◽  
Hoang Dai Viet ◽  
Duong Thanh Tai ◽  
James C. L. Chow
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Target Volumes

Abstract Purpose: This study compared the plan dosimetry between the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and field-in-field (FIF) technique for head-and-neck cancer using the Elekta Monaco treatment planning system (TPS). Materials and methods: A total of 20 head-and-neck cancer patients were selected in this study. IMRT and FIF plans for the patients were created on the Monaco TPS (ver. 5.11.02) using the 6-MV photon beam generated by the Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. The dose–volume histograms, maximum doses, minimum doses, mean doses of the target volumes and organs-at-risk (OARs), conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and monitor units (MUs) were determined for each IMRT and FIF plan. All IMRT plans passed the patient-specific quality assurance tests from the 2D diode array measurements (MatriXX Evolution System, IBA Dosimetry, Germany). Results: The results showed that the dose distribution to the target volumes of IMRT plans was better than FIF plans, while the dose (mean or max dose) to the OAR was significantly lower than FIF plan, respectively. IMRT and FIF resulted in planning target volume coverage with mean dose of 71·32 ± 0·76 and 73·12 ± 0·62 Gy, respectively, and HI values of 0·08 ± 0·01 (IMRT) and 0·19 ± 0·06 (FIF). The CI for IMRT was 0·98 ± 0·01 and FIF was 0·97 ± 0·01. For the spinal cord tolerance (maximum dose < 45 Gy), IMRT resulted in 39·85 ± 2·04 Gy compared to 41·37 ± 2·42 Gy for FIF. In addition, the mean doses to the parotid grand were 27·27 ± 7·48 and 48·68 ± 1·62 Gy for the IMRT and FIF plans, respectively. Significantly more MUs were required in IMRT plans than FIF plans (on average, 846 ± 100 MU in IMRT and 467 ± 41 MU in FIF). Conclusions: It is concluded that the IMRT technique could provide a better plan dosimetry than the FIF technique for head-and-neck patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document