°£¾ÏȯÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼¼±âÁ¶Àý¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¿¡¼ÀÇ 2Â÷ »ê¶õ¼±·®Æò°¡
Estimation of Secondary Scattered Dose from Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy for Liver Cancer Cases
Progress in Medical Physics 2013³â 24±Ç 4È£ p.295 ~ p.302
±èµ¿¿í(Kim Dong-Wook) - °µ¿°æÈñ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
ÀÌÇöÈ£(Lee Hyun-Ho) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÀ¶ÇÕ°øÇаú
À±¸í±Ù(Yoon Myong-Geun) - °í·Á´ëÇб³ ¹ÙÀÌ¿ÀÀ¶ÇÕ°øÇаú
Á¤¿ø±Ô(Chung Weon-Kuu) - °µ¿°æÈñ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
¹è¼±Çö(Bae Sun-Hyun) - °µ¿°æÈñ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
½Åµ¿¿À(Shin Dong-Oh) - °æÈñ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
Á¤±¤ÁÖ(Chung Kwang-Zoo) - »ï¼ºÀÇ·á¿ø ¹æ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇаú
ÀÓ¿µ°æ(Lim Young-Kyung) - ±¹¸³¾Ï¼¾ÅÍ ¾ç¼ºÀÚÄ¡·á¼¾ÅÍ
½Åµ¿È£(Shin Dong-Ho) - ±¹¸³¾Ï¼¾ÅÍ ¾ç¼ºÀÚÄ¡·á¼¾ÅÍ
À̼¼º´(Lee Se-Byeong) - ±¹¸³¾Ï¼¾ÅÍ ¾ç¼ºÀÚÄ¡·á¼¾ÅÍ
Abstract
°£¾Ï ȯÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼¼±âÁ¶Àý¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á(IMRT, intensity modulated radiotherapy) ¹× ¼¼±âÁ¶ÀýȸÀü¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á(VMAT, volumetric arc therapy)¿Í ³ª¼±½ÄÅä¸ðÄ¡·á(TOMO, Helical Tomotherapy)¿¡¼ 2Â÷ ¾ÏÀÇ ¿øÀÎÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »ê¶õ ¹× ´©Ãâ¼±·®·üÀ» Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 5¸íÀÇ °£¾Ï ȯÀÚ¿¡ ´ëÇØ IMRT¿Í VMAT, TOMO Ä¡·á°èȹÀ» ½Ç½ÃÇÏ¿© µîÁß½É(iso-center)À¸·ÎºÎÅÍ 20, 40, 60, 80 cm À§Ä¡¿¡¼ À¯¸®¼±·®°è(RPLGD, radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeter)¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ¼±·®À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. °èȹǥÀûüÀû(Planning Target Volume, PTV)¿¡ Á¶»çµÈ ´ÜÀ§ ¼±·®(Gy)´ç ÃøÁ¤µÈ »ê¶õ ¹× ´©Ãâ¼±·®Àº IMRTÀÇ °æ¿ì, ÃÖ¼Ò 0.01¿¡¼ ÃÖ´ë 3.13 Gy·Î ÃøÁ¤ µÇ¾ú°í VMAT¿¡ ´ëÇؼ´Â ÃÖ¼Ò 0.03¿¡¼ ÃÖ´ë 2.35 Gy±îÁö, TOMO¿¡ ´ëÇؼ´Â ÃÖ¼Ò 0.04¿¡¼ ÃÖ´ë 1.30 Gy ±îÁö ÃøÁ¤ µÇ¾ú´Ù. °¢ Ä¡·á¹ý¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Æò±ÕÀå±âµî°¡¼±·®Àº ¼¼±âÁ¶Àý¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¼¼±âÁ¶ÀýȸÀü¹æ»ç¼± Ä¡·á¿Í ³ª¼±½Ä´ÜÃþÅä¸ðÄ¡·á°¡ °¢°¢ °©»ó¼±¿¡¼ 75%¿Í 51%, ´ëÀå¿¡¼ 75%¿Í 41%, Á÷Àå¿¡¼ 72%¿Í 48%, Àü¸³¼±¿¡¼ 76%¿Í 50%·Î ³ª¿Ô´Ù. º» ÃøÁ¤À» ÅëÇÏ¿© »ê¶õ ¹× ´©Ãâ¼±·®Àº Ä¡·á Áß½ÉÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍÀÇ °Å¸®¿¡ µû¶ó °¨¼ÒÇÔÀ» º¸¾ÒÀ¸¸ç TOMO Ä¡·áÀÇ °æ¿ì, ȯÀÚÄ¡·á¸¦ À§ÇØ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â ¸ð´ÏÅÍ´ÜÀ§(MU, monitor unit)°¡ Ÿ Ä¡·á¹ý¿¡ ºñÇØ »ó´ëÀûÀ¸·Î Å¿¡µµ ºÒ±¸ÇÏ°í »ê¶õ ¹× ´©Ãâ¼±·®Àº Å©Áö ¾Ê´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÇ¾ú´Ù.
We estimated secondary scattered and leakage doses for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) and tomotherapy (TOMO) in patients with liver cancer. Five liver patients were planned by IMRT, VMAT and TOMO. Secondary scatter (and leakage) dose and organ equivalent doses (OEDs) are measured and estimated at various points 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center by using radiophotoluminescence glass dosimeter (RPLGD). The secondary dose per Gy from IMRT, VMAT and TOMO for liver cancer, measured 20 to 80 cm from the iso-center, are 0.01~3.13, 0.03~2.34 and 0.04~1.29 cGy, respectively. The mean values of relative OED of secondary dose of VMAT and TOMO for five patients, which is normalized by IMRT, measured as 75.24% and 50.92% for thyroid, 75.14% and 40.61% for bowel, 72.30% and 47.77% for rectum, 76.21% and 49.93% for prostate. The secondary dose and OED from TOMO is relatively low to those from IMRT and VMAT. OED based estimation suggests that the secondary cancer risk from TOMO is less than or comparable to the risks from conventional IMRT and VMAT.
Å°¿öµå
ÄÄÇ»ÅÍ´ÜÃþ¿µ»ó, ±Ý¼Ó ¿µ»ó¿Ö°î, »çÀ̳ë±×·¥, ¼±Çü º¸°£
Computed tomography, Metal artifact, Sinogram, Linear interpolation
KMID :
1038720130240040295
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
OED based estimation suggests that the secondary cancer risk from TOMO is less than or comparable to the risks from conventional IMRT and VMAT.