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

Title: SU-E-T-679: Retrospective Analysis of the Sensitivity of Planar Dose Measurements To Gamma Analysis Criteria

Abstract

Purpose: IMRT QA using planar dose measurements is still a widely used method for checking the accuracy of treatment plans. A pass/fail judgment is made using gamma analysis based on a single endpoint. Using more stringent criteria is a way to increase the sensitivity to planning and delivery errors. Before such implementation, it is necessary to understand how the sensitivity to different gamma criteria settings affects gamma passing rates (GPR). Methods: 752 IMRT QA measurements were re-analyzed with varying distance to agreement (DTA) and dose difference (DD) percentages using a Matlab program. Other quantifying information such as the mean dose difference in the treatment target (defined as points that are greater than 80% of maximal dose) were stored in a relational database for retrospective analysis. Results: The average and standard deviation of GPR (%) fell from 99.84 ± (0.43) to 89.61 ± (6.08) when restricting DD from 5 − 1% respectively, as compared to a drop from 99.15 ± (1.19) to 95.00 ± (4.43), when restricting the DTA from 5 − 1 mm respectively. The mean dose difference (%) in the treatment target between measured and calculated dose was −1.96 ± (0. 83), −0.09 ± (0.98), and 1.44 ± (0.more » 86) for each of our institution’s three matched linear accelerators (LINAC 1, 2, and 3 respectively). For plans that are approximately 2.7 sigma below the mean GPR, an average of 78.4% of those plans were measured on LINAC 1 or 3, while only 48% of the total plans were run on those machines. Conclusion: The data demonstrates that when restricting gamma criterion, such as the DD, the greatest indicator of reduced GPR in our institution is which matched LINAC the plan was measured on. While small, these differences manifest themselves to levels comparable to other treatment related differences and possibly confound the gamma analysis.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22538186
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; DIFFERENTIAL THERMAL ANALYSIS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; RADIATION DOSES; RADIOTHERAPY; SENSITIVITY

Citation Formats

Elguindi, S, Ezzell, G, and Gagneur, J. SU-E-T-679: Retrospective Analysis of the Sensitivity of Planar Dose Measurements To Gamma Analysis Criteria. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4925042.
Elguindi, S, Ezzell, G, & Gagneur, J. SU-E-T-679: Retrospective Analysis of the Sensitivity of Planar Dose Measurements To Gamma Analysis Criteria. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925042.
Elguindi, S, Ezzell, G, and Gagneur, J. Mon . "SU-E-T-679: Retrospective Analysis of the Sensitivity of Planar Dose Measurements To Gamma Analysis Criteria". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4925042.
@article{osti_22538186,
title = {SU-E-T-679: Retrospective Analysis of the Sensitivity of Planar Dose Measurements To Gamma Analysis Criteria},
author = {Elguindi, S and Ezzell, G and Gagneur, J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: IMRT QA using planar dose measurements is still a widely used method for checking the accuracy of treatment plans. A pass/fail judgment is made using gamma analysis based on a single endpoint. Using more stringent criteria is a way to increase the sensitivity to planning and delivery errors. Before such implementation, it is necessary to understand how the sensitivity to different gamma criteria settings affects gamma passing rates (GPR). Methods: 752 IMRT QA measurements were re-analyzed with varying distance to agreement (DTA) and dose difference (DD) percentages using a Matlab program. Other quantifying information such as the mean dose difference in the treatment target (defined as points that are greater than 80% of maximal dose) were stored in a relational database for retrospective analysis. Results: The average and standard deviation of GPR (%) fell from 99.84 ± (0.43) to 89.61 ± (6.08) when restricting DD from 5 − 1% respectively, as compared to a drop from 99.15 ± (1.19) to 95.00 ± (4.43), when restricting the DTA from 5 − 1 mm respectively. The mean dose difference (%) in the treatment target between measured and calculated dose was −1.96 ± (0. 83), −0.09 ± (0.98), and 1.44 ± (0. 86) for each of our institution’s three matched linear accelerators (LINAC 1, 2, and 3 respectively). For plans that are approximately 2.7 sigma below the mean GPR, an average of 78.4% of those plans were measured on LINAC 1 or 3, while only 48% of the total plans were run on those machines. Conclusion: The data demonstrates that when restricting gamma criterion, such as the DD, the greatest indicator of reduced GPR in our institution is which matched LINAC the plan was measured on. While small, these differences manifest themselves to levels comparable to other treatment related differences and possibly confound the gamma analysis.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4925042},
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}
}