Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
- 1. Institute for Smart System, Robotics Research Laboratory for Extreme Environments, Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon (Korea, Republic of)
- 2. Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
- 3. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
- 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
- 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
- 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Myongji Hospital, Goyang (Korea, Republic of)
- 7. Nuclear Emergency Division, Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Bureau, Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
Description
We investigate the gamma passing rate (GPR) consistency when applying different types of gamma analyses, linacs, and dosimeters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). A total of 240 VMAT plans for various treatment sites, which were generated with Trilogy (140 plans) and TrueBeam STx (100 plans), were retrospectively selected. For each VMAT plan, planar dose distributions were measured with both MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK dosimeters. During the planar dose distribution measurements, the actual multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, gantry angles, and delivered monitor units were recorded and compared to the values in the original VMAT plans to calculate mechanical errors. For each VMAT plan, both the global and local gamma analyses were performed with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, 1%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated 1) between the global and the local GPRs, 2) between GPRs with the MapCHECK2 and the ArcCHECK dosimeters, 3) and between GPRs and the mechanical errors during the VMAT delivery. For the MapCHECK2 measurements, strong correlations between the global and local GPRs were observed only with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm (r > 0.8 with p < 0.001), while weak or no correlations were observed for the ArcCHECK measurement. Between the MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK measurements, the global GPRs showed no correlations (all with p > 0.05), while the local GPRs showed moderate correlations only with 2%/1 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx (r > 0.5 with p < 0.001). Both the global and local GPRs always showed weak or no correlations with the MLC positional errors except for the GPRs of MapCHECK2 with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx and the GPR of ArcCHECK with 1%/2 mm for Trilogy (r < − 0.5 with p < 0.001). The GPRs varied according to the types of gamma analyses, dosimeters, and linacs. Therefore, each institution should carefully establish their own gamma analysis protocol by determining the type of gamma index analysis and the gamma criterion with their own linac and their own dosimeter.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x; Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137931Additional details
Identifiers
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Radiation Oncology (Online)
- Journal Volume
- 13
- Journal Page Range
- vp.
- ISSN
- 1748-717X
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 49082671
- Subject category
- S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
- Descriptors DEI
- CORRELATIONS; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; RADIOTHERAPY
- Descriptors DEC
- MEDICINE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; RADIOLOGY; THERAPY
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) The Author(s). 2018
- Notes
- PMCID: PMC6137931; PMID: 30217163; PUBLISHER-ID: 1123; OAI: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:6137931