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

Title: SU-G-BRB-16: Vulnerabilities in the Gamma Metric

Abstract

Purpose: To explore vulnerabilities in the gamma index metric that undermine its wide use as a radiation therapy quality assurance tool. Methods: 2D test field pairs (images) are created specifically to achieve high gamma passing rates, but to also include gross errors by exploiting the distance-to-agreement and percent-passing components of the metric. The first set has no requirement of clinical practicality, but is intended to expose vulnerabilities. The second set exposes clinically realistic vulnerabilities. To circumvent limitations inherent to user-specific tuning of prediction algorithms to match measurements, digital test cases are manually constructed, thereby mimicking high-quality image prediction. Results: With a 3 mm distance-to-agreement metric, changing field size by ±6 mm results in a gamma passing rate over 99%. For a uniform field, a lattice of passing points spaced 5 mm apart results in a passing rate of 100%. Exploiting the percent-passing component, a 10×10 cm{sup 2} field can have a 95% passing rate when an 8 cm{sup 2}=2.8×2.8 cm{sup 2} highly out-of-tolerance (e.g. zero dose) square is missing from the comparison image. For clinically realistic vulnerabilities, an arc plan for which a 2D image is created can have a >95% passing rate solely due to agreement in the lateralmore » spillage, with the failing 5% in the critical target region. A field with an integrated boost (e.g whole brain plus small metastases) could neglect the metastases entirely, yet still pass with a 95% threshold. All the failure modes described would be visually apparent on a gamma-map image. Conclusion: The %gamma<1 metric has significant vulnerabilities. High passing rates can obscure critical faults in hypothetical and delivered radiation doses. Great caution should be used with gamma as a QA metric; users should inspect the gamma-map. Visual analysis of gamma-maps may be impractical for cine acquisition.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649287
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; IMAGES; METRICS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; RADIATION DOSES; RATS; VULNERABILITY

Citation Formats

Neal, B, and Siebers, J. SU-G-BRB-16: Vulnerabilities in the Gamma Metric. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956923.
Neal, B, & Siebers, J. SU-G-BRB-16: Vulnerabilities in the Gamma Metric. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956923.
Neal, B, and Siebers, J. Wed . "SU-G-BRB-16: Vulnerabilities in the Gamma Metric". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956923.
@article{osti_22649287,
title = {SU-G-BRB-16: Vulnerabilities in the Gamma Metric},
author = {Neal, B and Siebers, J},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To explore vulnerabilities in the gamma index metric that undermine its wide use as a radiation therapy quality assurance tool. Methods: 2D test field pairs (images) are created specifically to achieve high gamma passing rates, but to also include gross errors by exploiting the distance-to-agreement and percent-passing components of the metric. The first set has no requirement of clinical practicality, but is intended to expose vulnerabilities. The second set exposes clinically realistic vulnerabilities. To circumvent limitations inherent to user-specific tuning of prediction algorithms to match measurements, digital test cases are manually constructed, thereby mimicking high-quality image prediction. Results: With a 3 mm distance-to-agreement metric, changing field size by ±6 mm results in a gamma passing rate over 99%. For a uniform field, a lattice of passing points spaced 5 mm apart results in a passing rate of 100%. Exploiting the percent-passing component, a 10×10 cm{sup 2} field can have a 95% passing rate when an 8 cm{sup 2}=2.8×2.8 cm{sup 2} highly out-of-tolerance (e.g. zero dose) square is missing from the comparison image. For clinically realistic vulnerabilities, an arc plan for which a 2D image is created can have a >95% passing rate solely due to agreement in the lateral spillage, with the failing 5% in the critical target region. A field with an integrated boost (e.g whole brain plus small metastases) could neglect the metastases entirely, yet still pass with a 95% threshold. All the failure modes described would be visually apparent on a gamma-map image. Conclusion: The %gamma<1 metric has significant vulnerabilities. High passing rates can obscure critical faults in hypothetical and delivered radiation doses. Great caution should be used with gamma as a QA metric; users should inspect the gamma-map. Visual analysis of gamma-maps may be impractical for cine acquisition.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956923},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}
  • Purpose: The novel 3 dimensional (3D)-printed spine quality assurance (QA) phantoms generated by two different 3D-printing technologies, digital light processing (DLP) and Polyjet, were developed and evaluated for spine stereotactic body radiation treatment (SBRT). Methods: The developed 3D-printed spine QA phantom consisted of an acrylic body and a 3D-printed spine phantom. DLP and Polyjet 3D printers using the high-density acrylic polymer were employed to produce spine-shaped phantoms based on CT images. To verify dosimetric effects, the novel phantom was made it enable to insert films between each slabs of acrylic body phantom. Also, for measuring internal dose of spine, 3D-printedmore » spine phantom was designed as divided laterally exactly in half. Image fusion was performed to evaluate the reproducibility of our phantom, and the Hounsfield unit (HU) was measured based on each CT image. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans to deliver a fraction of a 16 Gy dose to a planning target volume (PTV) based on the two 3D-printing techniques were compared for target coverage and normal organ-sparing. Results: Image fusion demonstrated good reproducibility of the fabricated spine QA phantom. The HU values of the DLP- and Polyjet-printed spine vertebrae differed by 54.3 on average. The PTV Dmax dose for the DLP-generated phantom was about 1.488 Gy higher than for the Polyjet-generated phantom. The organs at risk received a lower dose when the DLP technique was used than when the Polyjet technique was used. Conclusion: This study confirmed that a novel 3D-printed phantom mimicking a high-density organ can be created based on CT images, and that a developed 3D-printed spine phantom could be utilized in patient-specific QA for SBRT. Despite using the same main material, DLP and Polyjet yielded different HU values. Therefore, the printing technique and materials must be carefully chosen in order to accurately produce a patient-specific QA phantom.« less
  • Purpose: Routine linac quality assurance (QA) tests have become complex enough to require automation of most test analyses. A new data analysis software library was built that allows physicists to automate routine linear accelerator quality assurance tests. The package is open source, code tested, and benchmarked. Methods: Images and data were generated on a TrueBeam linac for the following routine QA tests: VMAT, starshot, CBCT, machine logs, Winston Lutz, and picket fence. The analysis library was built using the general programming language Python. Each test was analyzed with the library algorithms and compared to manual measurements taken at the timemore » of acquisition. Results: VMAT QA results agreed within 0.1% between the library and manual measurements. Machine logs (dynalogs & trajectory logs) were successfully parsed; mechanical axis positions were verified for accuracy and MLC fluence agreed well with EPID measurements. CBCT QA measurements were within 10 HU and 0.2mm where applicable. Winston Lutz isocenter size measurements were within 0.2mm of TrueBeam’s Machine Performance Check. Starshot analysis was within 0.2mm of the Winston Lutz results for the same conditions. Picket fence images with and without a known error showed that the library was capable of detecting MLC offsets within 0.02mm. Conclusion: A new routine QA software library has been benchmarked and is available for use by the community. The library is open-source and extensible for use in larger systems.« less
  • Purpose: To examine both the IQM’s sensitivity and false positive rate to varying MLC errors. By balancing these two characteristics, an optimal tolerance value can be derived. Methods: An un-modified SBRT Liver IMRT plan containing 7 fields was randomly selected as a representative clinical case. The active MLC positions for all fields were perturbed randomly from a square distribution of varying width (±1mm to ±5mm). These unmodified and modified plans were measured multiple times each by the IQM (a large area ion chamber mounted to a TrueBeam linac head). Measurements were analyzed relative to the initial, unmodified measurement. IQM readingsmore » are analyzed as a function of control points. In order to examine sensitivity to errors along a field’s delivery, each measured field was divided into 5 groups of control points, and the maximum error in each group was recorded. Since the plans have known errors, we compared how well the IQM is able to differentiate between unmodified and error plans. ROC curves and logistic regression were used to analyze this, independent of thresholds. Results: A likelihood-ratio Chi-square test showed that the IQM could significantly predict whether a plan had MLC errors, with the exception of the beginning and ending control points. Upon further examination, we determined there was ramp-up occurring at the beginning of delivery. Once the linac AFC was tuned, the subsequent measurements (relative to a new baseline) showed significant (p <0.005) abilities to predict MLC errors. Using the area under the curve, we show the IQM’s ability to detect errors increases with increasing MLC error (Spearman’s Rho=0.8056, p<0.0001). The optimal IQM count thresholds from the ROC curves are ±3%, ±2%, and ±7% for the beginning, middle 3, and end segments, respectively. Conclusion: The IQM has proven to be able to detect not only MLC errors, but also differences in beam tuning (ramp-up). Partially supported by the Susan Scott Foundation.« less
  • Purpose: Linac commissioning is a time consuming and labor intensive process, the streamline of which is highly desirable. In particular, manual measurement of output factors for a variety of field sizes and energy greatly hinders the commissioning efficiency. In this study, automated measurement of output factors was demonstrated as ‘one-click’ using data logging of an electrometer. Methods: Beams to be measured were created in the recording and verifying (R&V) system and configured for continuous delivery. An electrometer with an automatic data logging feature enabled continuous data collection for all fields without human intervention. The electrometer saved data into a spreadsheetmore » every 0.5 seconds. A Matlab program was developed to analyze the excel data to monitor and check the data quality. Results: For each photon energy, output factors were measured for five configurations, including open field and four wedges. Each configuration includes 72 fields sizes, ranging from 4×4 to 20×30 cm{sup 2}. Using automation, it took 50 minutes to complete the measurement of 72 field sizes, in contrast to 80 minutes when using the manual approach. The automation avoided the necessity of redundant Linac status checks between fields as in the manual approach. In fact, the only limiting factor in such automation is Linac overheating. The data collection beams in the R&V system are reusable, and the simplified process is less error-prone. In addition, our Matlab program extracted the output factors faithfully from data logging, and the discrepancy between the automatic and manual measurement is within ±0.3%. For two separate automated measurements 30 days apart, consistency check shows a discrepancy within ±1% for 6MV photon with a 60 degree wedge. Conclusion: Automated output factor measurements can save time by 40% when compared with conventional manual approach. This work laid ground for further improvement for the automation of Linac commissioning.« less
  • Purpose: To develop an automated method to calculate a linear accelerator (LINAC) photon radiation field size, flatness, symmetry, output and beam quality in a single delivery for flattened (FF) and flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams using an ionization chamber array. Methods: The proposed method consists of three control points that deliver 30×30, 10×10 and 5×5cm{sup 2} fields (FF or FFF) in a step-and-shoot sequence where the number of monitor units is weighted for each field size. The IC Profiler (Sun Nuclear Inc.) with 5mm detector spacing was used for this study. The corrected counts (CCs) were calculated and the locations of themore » maxima and minima values of the first-order gradient determined data of each sub field. Then, all CCs for each field size are summed in order to obtain the final profiles. For each profile, the radiation field size, symmetry, flatness, output factor and beam quality were calculated. For field size calculation, a parameterized gradient method was used. For method validation, profiles were collected in the detector array both, individually and as part of the step-and-shoot plan, with 9.9cm buildup for FF and FFF beams at 90cm source-to-surface distance. The same data were collected with the device (plus buildup) placed on a movable platform to achieve a 1mm resolution. Results: The differences between the dosimetric quantities calculated from both deliveries, individually and step-and-shoot, were within 0.31±0.20% and 0.04±0.02mm. The differences between the calculated field sizes with 5mm and 1mm resolution were ±0.1mm. Conclusion: The proposed single delivery method proved to be simple and efficient in automating the photon dosimetric monthly and annual quality assurance.« less