Dosimetric Verification of Gamma Passing Rate for Head and Neck Cases Treated with Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) Treatment Planning Technique

Each Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) plan needs to be tested and verified before any treatment to check its quality. Octavius 4D-1500 phantom detector is a modern and qualified device for quality assurance procedure. This study aims to compare the common dosimetric criteria 3%/3 mm with 2%/2 mm for H&N plans for the IMRT technique. Twenty-five patients with head and neck (H&N) tumor were with 6MV x-ray photon beam using Monaco 5.1 treatment planning software and exported to Elekta synergy linear accelerator then tested for pretreatment verification study using Octavius 4D-1500 phantom detector. The difference between planned and measured dose were assessed by using local and global gamma index (GI) analysis method at threshold 10%. The DD/DTA criteria are performed with 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm. A significant difference is shown between the measured and calculated point dose for the treatment plans. A comparison made between the gamma passing rate between the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm shows a significant difference for local and global which shows that the 2%/2 mm are more sensitive to dose variation than 3%/3 mm. The total monitor unit (MU) shows a negative linear relationship with both criteria and %GP types. A significant correlation is shown between the total MU and global %GP at 2%/2 mm criterion. The conclusion of the study indicates that 2%/2 mm criterion is more sensitive to the dose distribution changes than the 3%/3 mm. The total number of monitor units should be taken into consideration during the planning of H&N tumors using the IMRT plans.

Comparison between different Dosimetric Tools based on Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT): A Phantom Study

This study examined the gamma passing rate (GPR) consistency during applying different kinds of gamma analyses and dosimeters to IMRT. Methods: Import treatment protocols for QA phantom irradiation have been recalculated. A gamma analysis was used for comparing the measured and calculated dose distribution of IMRT for different gamma criteria (2%/2mm, 3%/3mm, 4%/4mm, 3%/5mm, 3%/5mm). These criteria are evaluated when 5%, 10%, or 15% of the dose distribution is suppressed. Measured and calculated dose distribution was evaluated with gamma analysis to dose difference (DD) with DTA criteria (distance to agreement). IMRT QA plans to 25 patients from various sites were formed with the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. Results: Results indicate different diverse hardware and software combinations show varied levels of agreement with expected analysis for the same pass-rate criterion. For a dosimetry audit of the IMRT technique, an EPID detector is superior to conventional methods comparable to Gafchromic EPT3 film and 2D array due to cost, time-consuming, and set up error to get result analysis. The gamma passing rate (GPR) average is increased by increasing the low-dose threshold for different dosimetric tools. For EPID, regardless of the gamma criterion employed, the %GP does not appear to be dependent on the low-dose threshold values (5%-15%) because it indicates that fulfilment the low-dose threshold to global normalization has little effect on patient-specific QA outcomes. Conclusions: It is concluded that GPRs differ depending on gamma, dosimetric tools, and the suppressing dose ratio. To get the best results of quality assurance, each institution should thus carefully develop its procedure for gamma analysis by defining the gamma index analysis and gamma criterion using its dosimetric tools.

Verification of an optimizer algorithm by the beam delivery evaluation of intensity-modulated arc therapy plans

Background In the case of dynamic radiotherapy plans, the fractionation schemes can have dosimetric effects. Our goal was to define the effect of the fraction dose on the plan quality and the beam delivery. Materials and methods Treatment plans were created for 5 early-stage lung cancer patients with different dose schedules. The planned total dose was 60 Gy, fraction dose was 2 Gy, 3 Gy, 5 Gy, 12 Gy and 20 Gy. Additionally renormalized plans were created by changing the prescribed fraction dose after optimization. The dosimetric parameters and the beam delivery parameters were collected to define the plan quality and the complexity of the treatment plans. The accuracy of dose delivery was verified with dose measurements using electronic portal imaging device (EPID). Results The plan quality was independent from the used fractionation scheme. The fraction dose could be changed safely after the optimization, the delivery accuracy of the treatment plans with changed prescribed dose was not lower. According to EPID based measurements, the high fraction dose and dose rate caused the saturation of the detector, which lowered the gamma passing rate. The aperture complexity score, the gantry speed and the dose rate changes were not predicting factors for the gamma passing rate values. Conclusions The plan quality and the delivery accuracy are independent from the fraction dose, moreover the fraction dose can be changed safely after the dose optimization. The saturation effect of the EPID has to be considered when the action limits of the quality assurance system are defined.

Assessment of Delivery Quality Assurance for Stereotactic Radiosurgery With Cyberknife

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to establish and assess a practical delivery quality assurance method for stereotactic radiosurgery with Cyberknife by analyzing the geometric and dosimetric accuracies obtained using a PTW31016 PinPoint ionization chamber and EBT3 films. Moreover, this study also explores the relationship between the parameters of plan complexity, target volume, and deliverability parameters and provides a valuable reference for improving plan optimization and validation.MethodsOne hundred fifty cases of delivery quality assurance plans were performed on Cyberknife to assess point dose and planar dose distribution, respectively, using a PTW31016 PinPoint ionization chamber and Gafchromic EBT3 films. The measured chamber doses were compared with the planned mean doses in the sensitive volume of the chamber, and the measured planar doses were compared with the calculated dose distribution using gamma index analysis. The gamma passing rates were evaluated using the criteria of 3%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm. The statistical significance of the correlations between the complexity metrics, target volume, and the gamma passing rate were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.ResultsFor point dose comparison, the averaged dose differences (± standard deviations) were 1.6 ± 0.73% for all the cases. For planar dose distribution, the mean gamma passing rate for 3%/1 mm, and 2%/2 mm evaluation criteria were 94.26% ± 1.89%, and 93.86% ± 2.16%, respectively. The gamma passing rates were higher than 90% for all the delivery quality assurance plans with the criteria of 3%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm. The difference in point dose was lowly correlated with volume of PTV, number of beams, and treatment time for 150 DQA plans, and highly correlated with volume of PTV for 18 DQA plans of small target. DQA gamma passing rate (2%/2 mm) was a moderate significant correlation for the number of nodes, number of beams and treatment time, and a low correlation with MU.ConclusionPTW31016 PinPoint ionization chamber and EBT3 film can be used for routine Cyberknife delivery quality assurance. The point dose difference should be within 3%. The gamma passing rate should be higher than 90% for the criteria of 3%/1 mm and 2%/2 mm. In addition, the plan complexity and PTV volume were found to have some influence on the plan deliverability.

Evaluation of Daily CT for EPID-Based Transit In Vivo Dosimetry

PurposeThe difference in anatomical structure and positioning between planning and treatment may lead to bias in electronic portal image device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry calculations. The purpose of this study was to use daily CT instead of planning CT as a reference for EPID-based in vivo dosimetry calculations and to analyze the necessity of using daily CT for EPID-based in vivo dosimetry calculations in terms of patient quality assurance.Materials and MethodsTwenty patients were enrolled in this study. The study design included eight different sites (the cervical, nasopharyngeal, and oral cavities, rectum, prostate, bladder, lung, and esophagus). All treatments were delivered with a CT-linac 506c (UIH, Shanghai) using 6 MV photon beams. This machine is equipped with diagnosis-level fan-beam CT and an amorphous silicon EPID XRD1642 (Varex Imaging Corporation, UT, USA). A Monte Carlo algorithm was developed to calculate the transmit EPID image. A pretreatment measurement was performed to assess system accuracy by delivering based on a homogeneous phantom (RW3 slab, PTW, Freiburg). During treatment, each patient underwent CT scanning before delivery either once or twice for a total of 268 fractions obtained daily CT images. Patients may have had a position correction that followed our image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) procedure. Meanwhile, transmit EPID images were acquired for each field during delivery. After treatment, all patient CTs were reviewed to ensure that there was no large anatomical change between planning and treatment. The reference of transmit EPID images was calculated based on both planning and daily CTs, and the IGRT correction was corrected for the EPID calculation. The gamma passing rate (3 mm 3%, 2 mm 3%, and 2 mm 2%) was calculated and compared between the planning CT and daily CT. Mechanical errors [ ± 1 mm, ± 2 mm, ± 5 mm multileaf collimator (MLC) systematic shift and 3%, 5% monitor unit (MU) scaling] were also introduced in this study for comparing detectability between both types of CT.ResultThe average (standard deviation) gamma passing rate (3 mm 3%, 2 mm 3%, and 2 mm 2%) in the RW3 slab phantom was 99.6% ± 1.0%, 98.9% ± 2.1%, and 97.2% ± 3.9%. For patient measurement, the average (standard deviation) gamma passing rates were 87.8% ± 14.0%, 82.2% ± 16.9%, and 74.2% ± 18.9% for using planning CTs as reference and 93.6% ± 8.2%, 89.7% ± 11.0%, and 82.8% ± 14.7% for using daily CTs as reference. There were significant differences between the planning CT and daily CT results. All p-values (Mann–Whitney test) were less than 0.001. In terms of error simulation, nonparametric test shows that there were significant differences between practical daily results and error simulation results (p < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that the detectability of mechanical delivery error using daily CT was better than that of planning CT. AUCDaily CT = 0.63–0.96 and AUCPlanning CT = 0.49–0.93 in MLC systematic shift and AUCDaily CT = 0.56–0.82 and AUCPlanning CT = 0.45–0.73 in MU scaling.ConclusionThis study shows the feasibility and effectiveness of using two-dimensional (2D) EPID portal image and daily CT-based in vivo dosimetry for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) verification during treatment. The daily CT-based in vivo dosimetry has better sensitivity and specificity to identify the variation of IMRT in MLC-related and dose-related errors than planning CT-based.

A Beam Projection-Based Modified Gamma Analysis Scheme for Clinically Interpretable Pre-Treatment Dose Verification

Purpose: To investigate a novel gamma analysis system for dose verification results in terms of clinical significance. Methods and Materials: The modified scheme redefined the computational domain of the conventional gamma analysis with the projections of beams and the regions of interest (ROI). We retrospectively studied 6 patients with the conventional and the modified gamma analysis schemes while compared their performances. The cold spots ratio of the planning target volume (PTV) and the hot spots ratio of the organs at risk (OAR) were also computed by the modified scheme to assess the clinical significance. Results: The result of the gamma passing rate in the modified method was conformable to that in the conventional method with a cut-off threshold of 5%. The cold spots ratio of PTV and hot spots ratio of OAR were able to be evaluated by the modified scheme. For an introduced 7.1% dose error, the discrimination ratio in gamma passing rate of the conventional method was lower than 2%, while it was improved to 5% by the modified method. Conclusions: The modified gamma analysis scheme had a comparable quality as the conventional scheme in terms of dose inspection. Besides, it could improve the clinical significance of the QA result and provide the assessment for ROI-specific discrepancy. The modified scheme could also be conveniently integrated into the conventional dose verification process, benefiting the less developed regions where high-end 3D dose verification devices are not affordable.