Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/96511
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor鄭建宗zh_TW
dc.contributorChien-Chung Jengen_US
dc.contributor.author賴源淳zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorYuan-Chun Laien_US
dc.contributor.other物理學系所zh_TW
dc.date2017zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-17T07:54:17Z-
dc.identifier.citation1. Meeks SL, Buatti JM, Bova FJ, Friedman WA. Mendenhall, W.M. Treatment planning optimization for linear accelerator radiosurgery. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Phys 1998; 41(1):183-197. 2. Hazard LJ, Wang B, Skidmore TB, et al. Conformity of linac-based stereosurgery radiosurgery using dynamic conformal arcs and micro-multileaf collimator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009; 73(2):562-570. 3. Dhabaan A, Elder E, Schreibmann E, et al. Dosimetric performance of the new high-definition multileaf collimator for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys 2010; 11(3):197-211. 4. Mayo CS, Ding L, Addesa A, et al. Initial experience with volumetric IMRT (rapidarc) for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery. Int J Radia Oncol Biol Phys 2010; 78(5):1457-1466. 5. Ohtakara K, Hayashi S, Hoshi H. Dose gradient analyses in Linac-base intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery using Paddicks gradient index: consideration of the optimal method for plan evaluation. J Radiat Res 2011; 52(5):592-599. 6. Galal MM, Keogh S, Khalil S. Dosimetric and mechanical characteristics of a commercial dynamic μMLC used in SRS. Med Phys 2011; 38(7):4225-4231. 7. Audet C, Poffenbarger BA, Chang P, et al. Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy for cranial radiosurgery using multiple noncoplanar arcs. Med Phys 2011; 38(11):5863-5875. 8. Hong LX, Gard M, Lasala P, et al. Experience of micromultileaf collimator linear accelerator based single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: Tumors dose inhomogeneity, conformity, and dose fall off. Med Phys 2011; 38(3):1239-1247. 9. Gevaert T, Levivier M, Lacornerie T, et al. Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiosurgery of arteriovenous malformations and acoustic neuromas. Radiother Oncol 2013; 106(2):192-197. 10. Kaul D, Badakhshi H, Gevaret T, et al. Dosimetric comparison of different treatment modalities for stereotactic radiosurgery of meningioma. Acta Neurochir 2015; 157(4):559-563. 11. Leksell L. The stereotaxic method and radiosurgery of the brain. Acta Chir Scand 1951; 102(4):316-319. 12. Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, et al. Task Group 142 report: Quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009; 36(9):4197-4212. 13. Yip HY, Mui WL, Lee JW, et al. Evaluation of radiosurgery techniques–Cone-based linac radiosurgery vs tomotherapy-based radiosurgery. Med Dosim 2013; 38(2):184-189. 14. Soisson ET, Mehta MP, Tome WA. A comparison of helical tomotherapy to circular collimator-based linear-accelerator radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 2011; 34(4):388-394. 15. Shaw E, Scott C, Souhami L, et al. Radiosurgery for the treatment of previously irradiated recurrent primary brain tumors and brain metastases: Initial report of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 90-05. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996; 34(3):647– 654. 16. Wagner TH, Bova FJ, Friedman WA, et al. A simple and reliable index for scoring rival stereotactic radiosurgery plans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003; 57(4):1141– 1149. 17. Paddick I. A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. J Neurosurg (Suppl 3) 2000; 93: 219–222. 18. Paddick I, Lippitz B. A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. J Neurosurg (Suppl) 2006; 105: 194–201. 19. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med. Phys. 1998; 25(5): 656–661. 20. GAFChromic™ EBT3 film specifications, Available at www.gafchromic.com 21. Callens M, Crijns W, Simons V, et al. A spectroscopic study of the chromatic properties of GafChromicEBT3 films. Med. Phys. 2016; 43(3): 1156–1166. 22. Ertl A, Zehetmayer M, Schöggl A, Kindl P, Hartl R. Dosimetry studies with TLDs for stereotactic radiation techniques for intraocular tumors. Phys Med Biol 1997; 42(11): 2137-2145. 23. Ho AK, Gibbs IC, Chang ST, et al. The use of TLD and Gafchromic film to assure submillimeter accuracy for image-guided radiosurgery. Med Dosim 2008; 33(1):36-41. 24. Faught AM, Kry SF, Luo D, et al. Development of a modified head and neck quality assurance phantom for use in stereotactic radiosurgery trials. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14(4):206-215. 25. Fiandra C, Fusella M, Giglioli FR, et al. Comparison of Gafchromic EBT2 and EBT3 for patient-specific quality assurance: Cranial stereotactic radiosurgery using volumetric modulated arc therapy with multiple noncoplanar arcs. Med Phys 2013; 40(8): 0821051-0821057. 26. Barbosa NA, da Rosa LA, Batista DV, Carvalho AR. Development of a phantom for dose distribution verification in stereotactic radiosurgery. Phys Med 2013; 29(5): 461-469. 27. Cusmano D, Fumagalli ML, Marchetti M, et al. Dosimetric verification of stereotactic radiotherapy dose distributions using Gafchromic EBT3. Med Dosim 2015; 40(3): 226-231. 28. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, Dong L, Oldham M. Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med. Phys. 2011; 38(3): 1313–1338. 29. Oliver M, Ansbacher W, Beckham WA. Comparing planning time, delivery time and plan quality for IMRT, RapidArc and tomotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2009; 10(4):117-131. 30. Nithiyanantham K, Mani GK, Subramani V, Mueller L, Palaniappan KK, Kataria T. Analysis of direct clinical consequences of MLC positional errors in volumetric-modulated arc therapy using 3D dosimetry system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(5): 296–305. 31. Chen F, Rao M, Ye JS, Shepard DM, Cao D. Impact of leaf motion constraints on IMAT plan quality, deliver accuracy, and efficiency. Med Phys. 2011; 38(11): 6106–6118. 32. O'Connor P, Seshadri V, Charles P. Detecting MLC errors in stereotactic radiotherapy plans with a liquid filled ionization chamber array. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2016; 39(1):247-252. 33. Sontag MR, Cunningham JR. The equivalent tissue-air ratio method for making absorbed dose calculations in a heterogeneous medium. Radiology 1978; 129(3):787-794. 34. Ahnesjö A. Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Med Phys 1989; 16(4):577-592. 35. Mackie TR, Scrimger JW, Battista JJ. A convolution method of calculating dose for 15-MV x rays. Med Phys 1985; 12(2):188-196. 36. Boyer A, Mok E. A photon dose distribution model employing convolution calculations. Med Phys 1985; 12(2):169-177. 37. O'Connor JE. The variation of scattered x-rays with density in an irradiated body. Phys Med Biol 1957;1(4):352-369. 38. Solberg TD, Holly FE, De Salles AA, Wallace RE, Smathers JB. Implications of tissue heterogeneity for radiosurgery in head and neck tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 32(1):235–239. 39. Kan WK, Wu PM, Leung HT, et al. The effect of the nasopharyngeal air cavity on x-ray interface doses. Phys Med Biol 1998; 43(3):529–537. 40. Li XA, Yu C, Holmes T. A systematic evaluation of air cavity dose perturbation in megavoltage x-ray beams. Med Phys 2000; 27(5):1011–1017. 41. Huang CY, Chu TC, Lin SY, Lin JP, Hsieh CY. Accuracy of the convolution/ superposition dose calculation algorithmat the condition of electron disequilibrium. Appl Radiat Isot 2002; 57(6): 825–830. 42. Martens C, Reynaert N, De Wagter C, et al. Underdosage of the upper-airway mucosa for small fields as used in intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a comparison between radiochromic film measurements, Monte Carlo simulations, and collapsed cone convolution calculations. Med Phys 2002; 29(7): 1528–1535. 43. Lee N, Harris J, Garden AS, et al. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: radiation therapy oncology group phase II trial 0225. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(22): 3684–3690. 44. Epp ER, Boyer AL, Doppke KP. Underdosing of lesions resulting from lack of electronic equilibrium in upper respiratory air cavities irradiated by 10 MV x-ray beams. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1977; 2(7-8): 613–619. 45. Kan MW, Cheung JY, Leung LH, Lau BM, Yu PK. The accuracy of dose calculations by anisotropic analytical algorithms for stereotactic radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Phys Med Biol 2011; 56(2): 397-413. 46. Wang L, Yorke E, Chui CS. Monte Carlo evaluation of tissue inhomogeneity effects in the treatment of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001; 50(5): 1339–1349. 47. Linthout N, Verellen D, Van Acker S, Voordeckers M, Bretz A, Storme G. Evaluation of dose calculation algorithms for dynamic arc treatments of head and neck tumors. Radiother Oncol 2002; 64(1): 85–95.zh_TW
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11455/96511-
dc.description.abstract執行腦部立體定位放射治療手術(Stereotatic Radiotherapy, SRT)的治療裝置有Linac Cone-based、Linac FFF-VMAT及Tomotherapy等技術,而輻射劑量輸出的準確性將影響這些裝置對腫瘤的治療成果,本研究第一部份將評估Linac Cone-based、 Linac FFF-VMAT及Tomotherapy三種不同裝置,執行腦部SRT時,其輻射劑量給予之差異,並透過臨床測量驗證其輸出輻射劑量之準確性。 放射治療使用小照野時,其射束經過組織與空腔交界面,會因為電子不平衡(electronic disequilibrium)的效應,而造成治療計劃系統錯估交界面劑量。本研究第二部分以輻射劑量計搭配自製頭型假體,針對鼻咽癌患者,評估旋繞疊加演算法於IMRT、VMAT及Tomotherapy三種治療技術,其鼻咽組織與空腔交界面處,劑量給予之準確度。 研究結果顯示對於不同大小及腦幹距離之腫瘤,Linac Cone-based可得到最佳之順形度及最大之劑量梯度,Linac FFF-VMAT對於大直徑腫瘤的劑量梯度比Tomotherapy好,而Tomotherapy對於小直徑腫瘤的劑量梯度比Linac FFF-VMAT好,當腫瘤需規畫高劑量梯度時,甚至當腫瘤略微不規則時,建議選擇Linac Cone-based進行SRT治療。當使用Linac FFF-VMAT進行SRT時,MLC位置的微小偏差仍會對高劑量梯度區域產生明顯之誤差而影響量測之加馬通過率,必須嚴格要求MLC位置之準確性。 當面積為2 × 2cm^2之光子小照野射束經過鼻咽空腔組織時,EBT3、GR-200F和TLD-100近端界面測量的平均劑量與計算值之間的差異分別為-1.2%,-3.5%和0.8% 。遠端界面測得的平均劑量與計算值之間的差異分別為-15.8%,-16.4%和-4.9%,EBT3量測之BUR^-1為0.58。當使用IMRT、VMAT及Tomotherapy技術於交界面的量測結果皆無顯著劑量不足之情形,GR-200F分別於IMRT及Tomotherapy量到-4.2%及-4.3%之劑量最大差異。當使用旋繞疊加演算法時,由於電子不平衡的影響,小照野射束將導致在鼻咽空氣與組織界面處的劑量高估。 然而,臨床使用多角度照射可以減少由於小照野電子不平衡效應引起的劑量誤差之影響,其影響與總處方劑量相比可忽略不計。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThe modalities for performing stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) on the brain include the cone-based linear accelerator (linac), the flattening filter-free (FFF) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) linac, and tomotherapy. In the first part of this study, the cone-based linac, FFF-VMAT linac, and tomotherapy modalities were evaluated by measuring the differences in doses delivered during brain SRT and experimentally assessing the accuracy of the output radiation doses through clinical measurements. When using small field sizes in radiotherapy, the electronic disequilibrium effect as the beam passes through an air-tissue cavity will lead to inaccurate estimations of interface doses in treatment planning systems (TPS). In the second part of this study combined the use of radiation dosimeteric measurements and a custom-made anthropomorphic phantom in order to evaluate the accuracy of therapeutic dose calculations at the nasopharyngeal air-tissue interface, using convolution/superposition algorithms for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and tomotherapy, for the treatment of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. The results of this study show that the cone-based linac had the best conformity and steepest dose gradient for tumors of different sizes and distances from the brainstem. The FFF-VMAT linac had a better gradient than tomotherapy for a large tumor diameter. Tomotherapy had better gradient than the FFF-VMAT linac for smaller-diameter tumors. SRT should be performed using the cone-based linac on tumors that require treatment plans with a steep dose gradient, even as the tumor is slightly irregular. Slight deviation in the position of the MLC significantly affected the results of gamma analysis. The accuracy of the MLC position must be strictly confirmed. When measured the single field 2 × 2 cm^2, the differences between the average dose measured at the proximal interface for EBT3, GR-200F, and TLD-100 and the calculation values were -1.2%, -3.5%, and 0.8%, respectively. The differences between the average dose measured at the distal interface and the calculation values were -15.8%, -16.4%, and -4.9%, respectively. The BUR^-1 measured using EBT3 was 0.58. When using the clinical techniques, the measurement results at the interface for all three techniques did not imply under dose. The dose differences measured using GR-200F for IMRT and tomotherapy were -4.2% and -4.3%, respectively. Small field beam will lead to dose overestimation at the nasopharyngeal air-tissue interface due to electronic disequilibrium when using convolution/superposition algorithms. However, utilizing of multi-angle irradiation clinically can reduce the impact of dose errors due to the small-field electronic disequilibrium effect, and may be negligible when compared to the total prescribed dose.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents致謝 i 摘要 ii Abstract iv 目次 vi 圖目次 ix 表目次 xii 第一章 緒論 1 1.1 前言 1 1.2 研究目的 2 第二章 立體定位放射治療劑量比較 3 2.1 前言 3 2.1.1 直線加速器 4 2.1.2 斷層式螺旋治療儀 10 2.2 文獻回顧 11 2.3 實驗材料與方法 12 2.3.1 假體設計 12 2.3.2 治療計劃 13 2.3.3 劑量品質分析指標 15 2.3.4 加馬分析指標 16 2.3.5 熱發光劑量計 17 2.3.6 Gafchromic EBT3自顯影底片 19 2.3.7 劑量量測 22 2.4 實驗結果與討論 22 2.4.1 射束資料收集 22 2.4.2 劑量品質分析 26 2.4.3 劑量量測結果 29 2.5 結論 35 第三章 旋繞疊加演算法之空腔劑量準確度評估 37 3.1 前言 37 3.1.1 劑量學基礎 38 3.1.2 帶電粒子平衡 39 3.1.3 旋繞疊加劑量計算演算法 40 3.2 文獻回顧 46 3.3 實驗材料與方法 47 3.3.1 假體設計 47 3.3.2 治療計劃 47 3.3.3 劑量量測 48 3.4 實驗結果與討論 50 3.4.1 治療計劃結果 50 3.4.2 劑量計之劑量測量 50 3.5 結論 62 第四章 未來展望 64 4.1 立體定位放射治療 64 4.2 空腔劑量準確度評估 65 第五章 參考文獻 67zh_TW
dc.language.isozh_TWzh_TW
dc.rights不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務zh_TW
dc.subject立體定位放射治療zh_TW
dc.subject順形度zh_TW
dc.subject劑量梯度zh_TW
dc.subject旋繞疊加演算法zh_TW
dc.subject電子不平衡zh_TW
dc.subjectstereotactic radiotherapyen_US
dc.subjectconformityen_US
dc.subjectdose gradienten_US
dc.subjectconvolution/ superposition algorithmsen_US
dc.subjectelectronic disequilibriumen_US
dc.title光子小射束照野物理特性探討:立體定位放射治療劑量比較與旋繞疊加演算法之空腔劑量準確度評估zh_TW
dc.titlePhysical characteristics of small field Photon beam: comparison of dose characteristics for stereotactic radiotherapy and evaluation of accuracy for cavity dose of convolution/superposition algorithmen_US
dc.typethesis and dissertationen_US
dc.date.paperformatopenaccess2017-08-23zh_TW
dc.date.openaccess10000-01-01-
Appears in Collections:物理學系所
文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.