The aim of the study is to evaluate the point doses measured by different parameters at various depths with MVCT in the Tomotherapy Hi- Art (HT) treatment unit. HT works in two modes: visual modes and therapy modes. The MVCT images are taken in the visual mode. The user can choose the scan length and image pitch value in the visual mode. The system has pitch values called fine, normal and coarse. When the same volume is scanned during the gentry rotation, the scan times of fine, normal, and coarse modes are different from one another. Cheese Phantom is used to evaluate the point doses. The measured values ranged from 0.64 to 2.67 cGy with an average dose of 1.40cGy. The lowest MVCT dose is found when 7 slices are scanned with a depth of 20 cm for 51 seconds. The highest MVCT dose is found when 17 slices are scanned with a depth of 15 cm for 101 seconds. The measured values are the highest when the fine mode is selected with low depth and high slice. The IGRT method is used before each treatment and can be used more than once if necessary. Therefore, the right mode selection can prevent taking unnecessary doses during MVCT.

1. P. Yadav, R.Tolakanahalli, Y.Rong, B. R. Paliwal, “The effect and stability ofMVCT images on adaptive TomoTherapy,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 4 – 14, Jul. 2010.
   DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i4.3229
   PMid: 21081878
2. L. Meeks et al., “Performance characterization of megavoltage computed tomography imaging on a helical tomotherapy unit,” Med. Phys., vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 2673 – 2681, Aug. 2005.
   DOI: 10.1118/1.1990289
   PMid: 1619379
3. T. R. Mackie et al., “Tomotherapy: a new concept for the delivery of dynamic conformal radiotherapy,” Med. Phys., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1709 – 1719, Nov-Dec. 1993.
   DOI: 10.1118/1.596958
   PMid: 8309444
4. T. R. Mackie et al., “Image guidance for precise conformal radiotherapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 89 – 105, May 2003.
   DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3016(03)00090-7
   PMid: 12694827
5. S. M. Goddu et al., “Enhanced efficiency in helical tomotherapy quality assurance using a custom-designed water-equivalent phantom,” Med. Bio., vol. 54, no. 19, pp. 5663 – 5674, Oct. 2009.
   DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/001
   PMid: 19724101
6. F. Crop, A. Bernard, N.Reynaert, “Improving dose calculations on tomotherapy MVCT images,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 241 – 253, Sep. 2012.
   DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v13i6.3986
   PMid: 23149791
7. L. Minglu, Y. Wang, X. Liao, “Computed Tomography Dose Index Measurement for Hi-ART Megavoltage Helical CT,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim., vol. 171, no. 3, pp. 370 – 374, Nov. 2016.
   DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncv393
8. R. Jeraj, T. R. Mackie, J. Balog et al., “Radiation characteristics of helical tomotherapy,” Med. Phys., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 396 – 404, Feb. 2004.
   DOI: 10.1118/1.1639148
   PMid: 15000626
9. S. Yartsev, T. Kron, D. Van Dyk, “Tomotherapy as a tool in image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT): Theoretical and technological aspects,” Biomed. Imaging Interv. J., vol. 3, no. 1, e16, Jan. 2007.
   DOI: 10.2349/biij.3.1.e16
   PMid: 21614257
10. J. S. Welsh et al., “Clinical implementation of adaptive helical tomotherapy: a unique approach to image-guided intensity modulated radiotherapy,” Tech. Cancer Res. Treat., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 465 – 479, Oct. 2006.
    DOI: 10.1177/153303460600500503
    PMid: 16981789
11. J. S. Kim et al., “Development of Video Image-Guided Setup (VIGS) System for Tomotherapy: Preliminary Study,” Prog. Med. Phys., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 85 – 91, Jun. 2013.
    DOI: 10.14316/pmp.2013.24.2.85
12. J. P. Mege et al., “Evaluation of MVCT imaging dose levels during helical IGRT: comparison between ion chamber, TLD, and EBT3 films,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 143 – 157, Jan. 2016.
    DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i1.5774
    PMid: 26894346
13. P. Kupelian, K. Langen, “Helical tomotherapy: image-guided and adaptive radiotherapy,” Front Radiat. Ther. Oncol., vol. 43, pp. 165 – 180, May 2011.
    DOI: 10.1159/000322420
    PMid: 21625153
14. S. P. Xu et al., “Measurement and analysis of the imaging dose with megavoltage computed tomography for helical tomotherapy,” Chin. J. Cancer, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 886 – 889, Aug. 2009.
    DOI: 10.5732/cjc.008.10632
    PMid: 19664339
15. K. Son et al., “Evaluation of radiation dose to organs during kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography using Monte Carlo simulation,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 15, pp. 295 – 302, Mar. 2014.
    DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i2.4556
    PMid: 24710444
16. M. J. Murphy et al., “The management of imaging dose during image-guided radiotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 75,” Med. Phys., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 4041 – 4063, Oct. 2007.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.2775667
    PMid: 17985650
17. P. Alaeiand, E. Spezi, “Imaging dose from cone beam computed tomography in radiation therapy,” Phys. Med., vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 647 – 658, Nov. 2015.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.06.003
    PMid: 26148865
18. A. P. Shah et al., “Patient dose from megavoltage computed tomography imaging,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 1579 – 1587, Apr. 2008.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.11.048
    PMid: 18234438
19. A. Bujold et al., “Image-guided radiotherapy: Has it influenced patient outcomes?” Semin. Radiat. Oncol., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 50 – 61, Jan. 2012.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2011.09.001
    PMid: 22177878
20. J. Pouliot et al, “Low-dose megavoltage cone-beam CT for radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 238 – 241, Feb. 2005.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.10.011
    PMid: 15736320
21. M. K. Islam et al., “Patient dose from kilovoltage cone beam computed tomography imaging in radiation therapy,” Med. Phys.,vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1573 – 1582, Jun. 2006.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.2198169
    PMid: 16872065
22. J. Balog, G. Olivera, J. Kapatoes, “Clinical helical tomotherapy commissioning dosimetry,” Med. Phys., vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 3097 – 3106, Dec. 2003.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.1625444
    PMid: 14713076
23. L. J. Forrest et al., “The utility of megavoltage computed tomography images from a helical tomotherapy system for setup verification purposes,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.,vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1639 – 1644, Dec.2004.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.08.016
    PMid: 15590196
24. M. Chen, E. Chao, W. Lu, “Quantitative characterization of tomotherapy MVCT dosimetry,” Med. Dosim., vol. 38, no. 3 pp. 280 – 286, 2013.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.02.009
    PMid: 23558147
25. S. T. Schindera et al., “Effect of patient size on radiation dose for abdominal MDCT with automatic tube current modulation: phantom study,” Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 190, no. 2, pp. 344, Feb. 2008.
    DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2891
    PMid: 18212190