6 research outputs found

    ํ•œ๊ตญ ๊ตญํšŒ์˜ˆ์‚ฐ๊ถŒ ๊ฐ•ํ™”๋ฐฉ์•ˆ์— ๊ด€ํ•œ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ : ๊ตญํšŒ์˜ ์˜ˆ์‚ฐํŽธ์„ฑ๊ณผ์ •์—์˜ ์ฐธ์—ฌ๋ฅผ ์ค‘์‹ฌ์œผ๋กœ

    No full text
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(์„์‚ฌ)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ํ–‰์ •๋Œ€ํ•™์› :ํ–‰์ •ํ•™๊ณผ ์ •์ฑ…ํ•™์ „๊ณต,1998.Maste

    Liver tumor margin analysis using MVCT (Mega-Voltage Computed Tomography) image

    No full text
    ์˜ํ•™๊ณผ/์„์‚ฌ[ํ•œ๊ธ€] ๊ฐ„์ข…์–‘์˜ ๋ฐฉ์‚ฌ์„ ์น˜๋ฃŒ์‹œ ์…‹์—…์˜ค์ฐจ, ํ˜ธํก์— ์˜ํ•œ ํšก๊ฒฉ๋ง‰ ์›€์ง์ž„๊ณผ ์žฅ๊ธฐ์˜ ๊ธฐํ•˜ํ•™์  ๋ณ€ํ˜• ๋“ฑ์œผ๋กœ ์ธํ•˜์—ฌ ์ „ํ†ต์ ์ธ ๊ด€์ ์—์„œ ์ข…์–‘์˜ ์‹ค์ œ ์œ„์น˜๋ฅผ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜๋Š”๋ฐ ์ œ์•ฝ์ด ์žˆ์–ด ์™”๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ๋Š” ํ† ๋ชจํ…Œ๋ผํ”ผ ์˜์ƒ์œ ๋„์žฅ์น˜์ธ MVCT (Mega-voltage Computed Tomography) ์˜์ƒ์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์ž์œ  ํ˜ธํก์‹œ ์ข…์–‘๊ฒฝ๊ณ„์ƒํƒœ๋ฅผ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜์—ฌ ์ข…์–‘ ์œ„์น˜์˜ ๋ณ€ํ™” ์–‘์ƒ์„ ์•Œ์•„๋ณด๊ณ ์ž ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.2006 ๋…„ 4 ์›”๋ถ€ํ„ฐ 2007 ๋…„ 8 ์›”๊นŒ์ง€ ๊ฐ„์ข…์–‘์— ํ† ๋ชจํ…Œ๋ผํ”ผ๋ฅผ ๋ฐ›์€ ํ™˜์ž 26 ๋ช…์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ์น˜๋ฃŒ ์‹œ์ž‘ ํ›„ 10 ํšŒ๊นŒ์ง€ ๋งคํšŒ ์น˜๋ฃŒ์‹œ์˜ MVCT ์˜์ƒ์„ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. 1์ฐจ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ณจ๊ฒฉ ๊ตฌ์กฐ์— ๋”ฐ๋ผ ์…‹์—…์˜ค์ฐจ๋ณด์ •์„ ํ•œ ์ƒํƒœ์—์„œ ์ข…์–‘๊ฒฝ๊ณ„๋ถ€์œ„์˜ ์œ„์น˜ ๋ณ€ํ™”๋ฅผ ์น˜๋ฃŒ๊ณ„ํš kVCT (Kilo-Voltage Computed Tomography)์™€์˜ ์˜์ƒ์œตํ•ฉ์„ ํ†ตํ•ด ๋น„๊ตํ•˜์—ฌ ์˜ค์ฐจ ์ •๋„๋ฅผ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ด ๋•Œ 2์ฐจ์› ์ง๊ต์ขŒํ‘œ๊ณ„ ์ƒ์—์„œ ์ข…์–‘๋ถ€์œ„์—์„œ ์น˜๋ฃŒ๊ณ„ํš kVCT์™€ MVCT ๊ฐ„์˜ ์ตœ๋Œ€ ๊ฐ„๊ฒฉ์ด ์žˆ๋Š” ๋ถ€๋ถ„์„ ๊ธฐ์ค€์œผ๋กœ ๊ธธ์ด๋ฅผ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ ๊ฐ„์ข…์–‘์˜ ์œ„์น˜๋ณ„ ๋ณ€ํ™” ์–‘์ƒ์„ ๋ณด๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•˜์—ฌ ์ข…์–‘ ์œ„์น˜๋ฅผ Couinaudโ€™s proposal์„ ๊ธฐ์ค€์œผ๋กœ 1 ๊ตฐ (S1), 2 ๊ตฐ (S2, S3, S4), 3 ๊ตฐ (S5, S6), 4 ๊ตฐ (S7, S8)์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜๋ˆ„์–ด ๊ฐ ๊ตฐ๋ณ„ ์œ„์น˜ ๋ณ€ํ™” ์–‘์ƒ์„ ๋น„๊ตํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ถ„์„์—๋Š” Tomotherapy Hi-Art system 2.0 (Tomotherapy, USA)์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.MVCT๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ด ์•Œ์•„๋ณธ ํ‰๊ท  ์…‹์—…์˜ค์ฐจ๋Š” ๊ฐ๊ฐ 0.45 ยฑ 2.04 mm (left-right), 0.97 ยฑ 4.06 mm (cranial-caudal), 8.38 ยฑ 4.67 mm (anterior-posterior) ์ด์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ข…์–‘ ์œ„์น˜์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ์œ„์น˜ ๋ณ€ํ™” ์–‘์ƒ์€ ๊ฐ ๊ตฐ๋ณ„ ๊ด€๋ จ์„ฑ ๋ณด๋‹ค๋Š” ํ™˜์ž์˜ ๊ฐœ๋ณ„์  ํŠน์„ฑ์ด ์ค‘์š”ํ•œ ์ธ์ž์ธ ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚œ ๊ฐ€์šด๋ฐ 2 ๊ตฐ์ด ์ „๋ฐฉ ๋ฐ”๊นฅ์ชฝ์œผ๋กœ 2.80 mm, ์ขŒ์ธก ์•ˆ์ชฝ์œผ๋กœ 2.23 mm ์ฐจ์ด๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด์–ด 1, 3, 4 ๊ตฐ์— ๋น„ํ•ด ํŠน์ง•์ ์ธ ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๊ณ , 4 ๊ตฐ์€ ์ „, ํ›„, ์ขŒ, ์šฐ ์ฐจ์ด์˜ ํŽธ์ฐจ๊ฐ€ ์‹ฌํ–ˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ 1, 2, 3 ๊ตฐ ๋ชจ๋‘ ํ›„๋ฐฉ์œผ๋กœ์˜ ์œ„์น˜ ๋ณ€ํ™”๋Š” 1 mm ์ „ํ›„๋กœ ์ ์€ ๊ฐ’์„ ๊ฐ–๋Š” ๊ฒฝํ–ฅ์„ฑ์„ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด์—ˆ๋‹ค.๊ฒฐ๋ก ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ฐ„์ข…์–‘์— ํ† ๋ชจํ…Œ๋ผํ”ผ๋ฅผ ์ ์šฉํ•  ๋•Œ MVCT๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์ข…์–‘ ์œ„์น˜์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅธ ์›€์ง์ž„์ด ๋‹ค์–‘ํ•จ์„ ํ™•์ธํ•  ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์—ˆ์œผ๋ฉฐ ์ด๋ฅผ ์ ์ ˆํ•œ PTV (Planning Target Volume) ์—ฌ๋ฐฑ์˜ ์„ค์ •์— ์ด์šฉํ•œ๋‹ค๋ฉด ํ–ฅํ›„ ๊ฐ„์ข…์–‘์˜ ์ •๋ฐ€ ๋ฐฉ์‚ฌ์„ ์น˜๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ๊ตฌํ˜„ํ•˜๋Š”๋ฐ ์œ ์ตํ•  ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ์ƒ๊ฐ๋œ๋‹ค. [์˜๋ฌธ]In liver tumor radiotherapy, there are some limitations such as setup errors, liver motions and geometrical deformation by respiration. Many studies have been done about liver motions. Mostly they are done by 2-dimensional analysis. Therefore, we tried to analyze the liver motions, setup errors, and each relationship by mega-voltage computed tomography, a 3-dimensional tomotherapy image-guided system.There were 26 patients who were treated for liver tumors by tomotherapy from Apr 2006 to Aug 2007. Most patients have hepatocellular carcimoma, some intrahepatic cholangioncarcinoma, and some metastatic liver tumor. We analyzed MVCT (Mega-Voltage Computed Tomography) image of each patient from 1st to 10th fraction. There were 2 steps in the analysis. First, we corrected setup error of each fraction by bony landmark. And second, we compared the tumor margin difference between the simulation kVCT (Kilo-Voltage Computed Tomography) image and MVCT image of each fraction in corrected setup status so that we could get tumor margin shift length data in each fraction. All data were set in the 2-dimensional right angle coordinate system of the transverse section of each patientโ€™s body and anterior, posterior, right, left shift lengths were measured by maximum shift length between kVCT and MVCT image. For craniocaudal margin difference, we used the diaphragmatic motion by 2 dimensional fluoroscopy because of rough MVCT images of coronal and sagittal view. We classified 4 groups by Couinardโ€™s 8 segments to assess motion pattern of each group. Group 1 is composed of patients with segment 1 lesion, group 2 segment 2, 3, 4 lesion, group 3 segment 5, 6 lesion, group 4 segment 7, 8 lesion. We used Varian Ximatron for diaphragmatic motion images and Tomotherapy Hi-Art system 2.0 (Tomotherapy, USA) for MVCT analyses.Mean length of the setup differences were 0.45 ยฑ 2.04 mm for left-right, 0.97 ยฑ 4.06 mm for cranial-caudal, 8.38 ยฑ 4.67 mm for anterior-posterior direction. Tumor motions according to tumor locations were relatively noticeable in group 2 and group 4. In group 2, anterior mean shift length was 2.80 mm outwards, left mean shift length was 2.23 mm inwards. In group 4, anterior, posterior, left, right mean shift lengths were quite irregular and in group 1, 2, 3, posterior mean shift lengths were around 1 mm.Through setup error data and tumor margin shift data, we verified the various motion patterns according to the liver tumor locations. Mean values did not show significant results, but patient-specific geometric variations due to internal target motions and daily setup errors (considered separately in the study) were more important than population average motion. Different and indivdualized assess may be needed in PTV margin expansion of the liver tumor when the tumor is located in different groups. In conclusion, the MVCT analysis is useful for proper PTV margin and precision radiotherapy.ope

    Second primary brain tumors following cranial irradiation for pediatric solid brain tumors

    No full text
    PURPOSE: We describe our institution's experience with seven patients who developed second brain tumors following cranial irradiation. METHODS: The median age at first irradiation was 8 years (range, 3-20 years). Initial diagnoses were two cases of germinoma, one non-germinomatous germ cell tumor (NGGCT), three cases of medulloblastoma, and one pineal gland tumor (pathology undetermined). All patients received craniospinal irradiation followed by local boost and the median dose to the initial tumor area was 54.0 Gy (range, 49.8-60.6 Gy). Four patients (two medulloblastomas, one germinoma, and one NGGCT) received chemotherapy. RESULTS: Second brain tumors were diagnosed a median of 114 months (range, 64-203) after initial radiation. Pathologic diagnoses were one glioblastoma, two cases of anaplastic astrocytoma, one medulloblastoma, one low-grade glioma, one high-grade glial tumor, and one atypical meningioma. Five patients underwent surgical resection with subsequent radiotherapy. One anaplastic astrocytoma patient received chemotherapy only following stereotactic biopsy. The meningioma patient was alive 32 months after total resection and radiosurgery for subsequent recurrences. Six patients died within 18 months and most deaths were due to disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients diagnosed with second brain tumors had received high-dose, large-volume radiotherapy with chemotherapy at a young age. Further studies are required to determine the relationship between radiotherapy/chemotherapy and the development of secondary brain tumors.ope

    Is there a clinical benefit to adaptive planning during tomotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer at risk for xerostomia?

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the necessity of adaptive planning in helical tomotherapy (TOMO) for head and neck cancer in terms of dosimetric influence on the parotid gland. METHODS: Thirty-one patients underwent curative TOMO for head and neck cancer from April 2006 to April 2007. For each patient, neck diameter was monitored together with body weight at first cervical spine level through mega-voltage computed tomography during the TOMO course. Ten of 31 patients, with significant weight loss (>5%) and/or neck diameter decrease (>10%), were selected for dosimetric analysis, and parotid dose was recalculated at the fourth and last week of TOMO. Xerostomia was estimated by Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria. RESULTS: The median dose was 69.96 Gy (range, 54 to 69.96 Gy) and there was no grade 3 or greater complication. Ten patients with significant neck diameter decrease and/or weight loss showed frequent grade 2 acute xerostomia (P=0.02). The volume percentage of daily fractional dose over 0.75 Gy for the parotid gland (V0.75 Gy) increased by 23.6% at the end of TOMO. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with significant anatomic contour change; neck diameter decrease (>10%) or weight loss (>5%), adaptive planning using mega-voltage computed tomography can identify dosimetric changes and reduce deleterious side effects such as xerostomia.ope
    corecore