skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-647: Quality Assurance of VMAT by Gamma Analysis Dependence On Low-Dose Threshold

Abstract

Purpose: The AAPM TG-119 instructed institutions to use low-dose threshold (LDT) of 10% or a ROI determined by the jaw when they collected gamma analysis QA data of planar dose distribution. Also, based on a survey by Nelms and Simon, more than 70% of institutions use a LDT between 0% and 10% for gamma analysis. However, there are no clinical data to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the LDT on the gamma index. Therefore, we performed a gamma analysis with LDTs of 0% to 15% according to both global and local normalization and different acceptance criteria: 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. Methods: A total of 30 treatment plans—10 head and neck, 10 brain, and 10 prostate cancer cases—were randomly selected from the Varian Eclipse TPS, retrospectively. For the gamma analysis, a predicted portal image was acquired through a portal dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse TPS, and a measured portal image was obtained using a Varian Clinac iX and an EPID. Then, the gamma analysis was performed using the Portal Dosimetry software. Results: For the global normalization, the gamma passing rate (%GP) decreased as the LDT increased, and all cases of low-dose thresholds exhibited a %GP above 95%more » for both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. However, for local normalization, the %GP increased as LDT increased. The gamma passing rate with LDT of 10% increased by 6.86%, 9.22% and 6.14% compared with the 0% in the case of the head and neck, brain and prostate for 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. Conclusion: Applying the LDT in the global normalization does not have critical impact to judge patient-specific QA results. However, LDT for the local normalization should be carefully selected because applying the LDT could affect the average of the %GP to increase rapidly.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ;  [1];  [1];  [2]
  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Reasearch Institute of Biomedical Engineering, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul (Korea, Republic of)
  2. (Korea, Republic of)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538156
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; COMPUTER CODES; DOSIMETRY; LOW DOSE IRRADIATION; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS

Citation Formats

Song, J, Kim, M, Lee, S, Lee, M, Suh, T, Park, S, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, Gyeonggi-do. SU-E-T-647: Quality Assurance of VMAT by Gamma Analysis Dependence On Low-Dose Threshold. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4925010.
Song, J, Kim, M, Lee, S, Lee, M, Suh, T, Park, S, & Department of Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, Gyeonggi-do. SU-E-T-647: Quality Assurance of VMAT by Gamma Analysis Dependence On Low-Dose Threshold. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925010.
Song, J, Kim, M, Lee, S, Lee, M, Suh, T, Park, S, and Department of Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, Gyeonggi-do. Mon . "SU-E-T-647: Quality Assurance of VMAT by Gamma Analysis Dependence On Low-Dose Threshold". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925010.
@article{osti_22538156,
title = {SU-E-T-647: Quality Assurance of VMAT by Gamma Analysis Dependence On Low-Dose Threshold},
author = {Song, J and Kim, M and Lee, S and Lee, M and Suh, T and Park, S and Department of Radiation Oncology, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, Gyeonggi-do},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The AAPM TG-119 instructed institutions to use low-dose threshold (LDT) of 10% or a ROI determined by the jaw when they collected gamma analysis QA data of planar dose distribution. Also, based on a survey by Nelms and Simon, more than 70% of institutions use a LDT between 0% and 10% for gamma analysis. However, there are no clinical data to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the LDT on the gamma index. Therefore, we performed a gamma analysis with LDTs of 0% to 15% according to both global and local normalization and different acceptance criteria: 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. Methods: A total of 30 treatment plans—10 head and neck, 10 brain, and 10 prostate cancer cases—were randomly selected from the Varian Eclipse TPS, retrospectively. For the gamma analysis, a predicted portal image was acquired through a portal dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse TPS, and a measured portal image was obtained using a Varian Clinac iX and an EPID. Then, the gamma analysis was performed using the Portal Dosimetry software. Results: For the global normalization, the gamma passing rate (%GP) decreased as the LDT increased, and all cases of low-dose thresholds exhibited a %GP above 95% for both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. However, for local normalization, the %GP increased as LDT increased. The gamma passing rate with LDT of 10% increased by 6.86%, 9.22% and 6.14% compared with the 0% in the case of the head and neck, brain and prostate for 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. Conclusion: Applying the LDT in the global normalization does not have critical impact to judge patient-specific QA results. However, LDT for the local normalization should be carefully selected because applying the LDT could affect the average of the %GP to increase rapidly.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4925010},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: Patient-specific QA for VMAT is incapable of providing full 3D dosimetric information and is labor intensive in the case of severe heterogeneities or small-aperture beams. A cloud-based Monte Carlo dose reconstruction method described here can perform the evaluation in entire 3D space and rapidly reveal the source of discrepancies between measured and planned dose. Methods: This QA technique consists of two integral parts: measurement using a phantom containing array of dosimeters, and a cloud-based voxel Monte Carlo algorithm (cVMC). After a VMAT plan was approved by a physician, a dose verification plan was created and delivered to the phantommore » using our Varian Trilogy or TrueBeam system. Actual delivery parameters (i.e., dose fraction, gantry angle, and MLC at control points) were extracted from Dynalog or trajectory files. Based on the delivery parameters, the 3D dose distribution in the phantom containing detector were recomputed using Eclipse dose calculation algorithms (AAA and AXB) and cVMC. Comparison and Gamma analysis is then conducted to evaluate the agreement between measured, recomputed, and planned dose distributions. To test the robustness of this method, we examined several representative VMAT treatments. Results: (1) The accuracy of cVMC dose calculation was validated via comparative studies. For cases that succeeded the patient specific QAs using commercial dosimetry systems such as Delta- 4, MAPCheck, and PTW Seven29 array, agreement between cVMC-recomputed, Eclipse-planned and measured doses was obtained with >90% of the points satisfying the 3%-and-3mm gamma index criteria. (2) The cVMC method incorporating Dynalog files was effective to reveal the root causes of the dosimetric discrepancies between Eclipse-planned and measured doses and provide a basis for solutions. Conclusion: The proposed method offers a highly robust and streamlined patient specific QA tool and provides a feasible solution for the rapidly increasing use of VMAT treatments in the clinic.« less
  • Purpose: Patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) brain stereotactic radiosurgery raises specific issues on dosimetric procedures, mainly represented by the small radiation fields associated with the lack of lateral electronic equilibrium, the need of small detectors and the high dose delivered. The purpose of the study is to compare three different dosimeters for pre-treatment QA. Methods: Nineteen patients (affected by neurinomas, brain metastases, and by meningiomas) were treated with VMAT plans computed on a Monte Carlo based TPS. Gafchromic films inside a slab phantom (GF), 3-D cylindrical phantom with two orthogonal diodes array (DA), and 3-D cylindricalmore » phantom with a single rotating ionization chambers array (ICA), have been evaluated. The dosimeters are, respectively, characterized by a spatial resolution of: 0.4 (in our method), 5 and 2.5 mm. For GF we used a double channel method for calibration and reading protocol; for DA and ICA we used the 3-D dose distributions reconstructed by the two software sold with the dosimeters. With the need of a common system for analyze different measuring approaches, we used an in-house software that analyze a single coronal plane in the middle of the phantoms and Gamma values (2% / 2 mm and 3% / 3 mm) were computed for all patients and dosimeters. Results: The percentage of points with gamma values less than one was: 95.7% for GF, 96.8% for DA and 95% for ICA, using 3%/3mm criteria, and 90.1% for GF, 92.4% for DA and 92% for ICA, using 2% / 2mm gamma criteria. Tstudent test p-values obtained by comparing the three datasets were not statistically significant for both gamma criteria. Conclusion: Gamma index analysis is not affected by different spatial resolution of the three dosimeters.« less
  • Purpose: A successful VMAT plan delivery includes precise modulations of dose rate, gantry rotational and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) shapes. One of the main problem in the plan quality assurance is dosimetric errors associated with leaf-positional errors are difficult to analyze because they vary with MU delivered and leaf number. In this study, we calculated integrated fluence error image (IFEI) from log-files and evaluated plan quality in the area of all and individual MLC leaves scanned. Methods: The log-file reported the expected and actual position for inner 20 MLC leaves and the dose fraction every 0.25 seconds during prostate VMAT onmore » Elekta Synergy. These data were imported to in-house software that developed to calculate expected and actual fluence images from the difference of opposing leaf trajectories and dose fraction at each time. The IFEI was obtained by adding all of the absolute value of the difference between expected and actual fluence images corresponding. Results: In the area all MLC leaves scanned in the IFEI, the average and root mean square (rms) were 2.5 and 3.6 MU, the area of errors below 10, 5 and 3 MU were 98.5, 86.7 and 68.1 %, the 95 % of area was covered with less than error of 7.1 MU. In the area individual MLC leaves scanned in the IFEI, the average and rms value were 2.1 – 3.0 and 3.1 – 4.0 MU, the area of errors below 10, 5 and 3 MU were 97.6 – 99.5, 81.7 – 89.5 and 51.2 – 72.8 %, the 95 % of area was covered with less than error of 6.6 – 8.2 MU. Conclusion: The analysis of the IFEI reconstituted from log-file was provided detailed information about the delivery in the area of all and individual MLC leaves scanned.« less
  • Purpose: A successful VMAT plan delivery includes precise modulations of dose rate, gantry rotational and multi-leaf collimator shapes. The purpose of this research is to construct routine QA protocol which focuses on VMAT delivery technique and to obtain a baseline including dose error, fluence distribution and mechanical accuracy during VMAT. Methods: The mock prostate, head and neck (HN) cases supplied from AAPM were used in this study. A VMAT plans were generated in Monaco TPS according to TG-119 protocol. Plans were created using 6 MV and 10 MV photon beams for each case. The phantom based measurement, fluence measurement andmore » log files analysis were performed. The dose measurement was performed using 0.6 cc ion chamber, which located at isocenter. The fluence distribution were acquired using the MapCHECK2 mounted in the MapPHAN. The trajectory log files recorded inner 20 leaf pairs and gantry angle positions at every 0.25 sec interval were exported to in-house software developed by MATLAB and determined those RMS values. Results: The dose difference is expressed as a ratio of the difference between measured and planned doses. The dose difference for 6 MV was 0.91%, for 10 MV was 0.67%. In turn, the fluence distribution using gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm with a 50% minimum dose threshold for 6 MV was 98.8%, for 10 MV was 97.5%, respectively. The RMS values of MLC for 6 MV and 10 MV were 0.32 mm and 0.37 mm, of gantry were 0.33 degree and 0.31 degree. Conclusion: In this study, QA protocol to assess VMAT delivery accuracy is constructed and results acquired in this study are used as a baseline of VMAT delivery performance verification.« less
  • Purpose: To demonstrate a patient specific, image-guided quality assurance method that tests both dosimetric and geometric accuracy for single-isocenter multiple-target VMAT radiosurgery (SIMT-VMAT-SRS) Method: We used a new film type, EBT-XD (optimal range 0.4–40Gy), and an in-house PMMA phantom having a coronal plane for film and a 0.125 cm3 ionization chamber (IC). The phantom contained fiducial features for kV image guided setup and for accurate film marking. Five patient plans with multiple targets sizes ranging from 3 to 21mm in diameter and prescribed doses from 14 to 18 Gy were selected. Two verification plans were generated for each case withmore » the film plane passing through the center of the largest and smallest targets. For the four largest targets we obtained an IC measurement. For each case, a calibration film was irradiated using a custom designed step pattern. The films were scanned using a flatbed color scanner and converted to dose using the calibration film and the three channel calibration method. Image registration was performed between film and treatment planning system calculations to evaluate the geometric accuracy. Results: The mean registration vector had an average magnitude of 0.47 mm (range from 0.13mm to 0.64 mm). For the four largest targets, the mean ratio of the IC and film measurement to expected dose was 0.990 (range 0.968 to 1.009) and 1.032 (1.021 to 1.046), respectively. The fraction of pixels having gamma index < 1 for criteria of 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, 3%/1mm was 98.8%, 97.5% and 87.2% before geometric registration and 99.1%, 98.3% and 94.8% after registration. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an image-guided QA method can assess both geometric and dosimetric accuracy. The phantom was positioned with sub-millimeter accuracy. Absolute film dosimetry using EBT-XD film was sufficiently accurate for assessment of dose to multi-targets too small for IC measurement in SRS VMAT plans.« less