Cargando…

Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors

This study compared three‐dimensional (3D) and two‐dimensional (2D) percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors and investigated the correlation between two kinds of %GP. Eleven prostate IMRT cases were selected, and errors in multileaf collimator (MLC) ba...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Dandan, Wang, Bin, Zhang, Guangshun, Ma, Charlie, Deng, Xiaowu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29905004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12389
_version_ 1783338158270709760
author Zhang, Dandan
Wang, Bin
Zhang, Guangshun
Ma, Charlie
Deng, Xiaowu
author_facet Zhang, Dandan
Wang, Bin
Zhang, Guangshun
Ma, Charlie
Deng, Xiaowu
author_sort Zhang, Dandan
collection PubMed
description This study compared three‐dimensional (3D) and two‐dimensional (2D) percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors and investigated the correlation between two kinds of %GP. Eleven prostate IMRT cases were selected, and errors in multileaf collimator (MLC) bank sag, MLC leaf traveling, and machine output were simulated by recalculating the dose distributions in patients. 2D doses were extracted from the 3D doses at the isocenter position. The 3D and 2D %GPs with different gamma criteria were then obtained by comparing the recalculated and original doses in specific regions of interest (ROI), such as the whole body, the planning target volume (PTV), the bladder, and the rectum. The sensitivities to simulated errors of the two types of %GP were compared, and the correlation between the 2D and 3D %GPs for different ROIs were analyzed. For the whole‐body evaluation, both the 2D and 3D %GPs with the 3%/3 mm criterion were above 90% for all tested MLC errors and for MU deviations up to 4%, and the 3D %GP was higher than the 2D %GP. In organ‐specific evaluations, the PTV‐specific 2D and 3D %GP gradients were −4.70% and −5.14% per millimeter of the MLC traveling error, and −17.79% and −20.50% per percentage of MU error, respectively. However, a stricter criterion (2%/1 mm) was needed to detect the tested MLC sag error. The Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant strong correlation (r > 0.8 and P < 0.001) between the 2D and 3D %GPs in the whole body and PTV‐specific gamma evaluations. The whole‐body %GP with the 3%/3 mm criterion was inadequate to detect the tested MLC and MU errors, and a stricter criterion may be needed. The PTV‐specific gamma evaluation helped to improve the sensitivity of the error detection, especially using the 3D GP%.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6036388
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60363882018-07-12 Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors Zhang, Dandan Wang, Bin Zhang, Guangshun Ma, Charlie Deng, Xiaowu J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study compared three‐dimensional (3D) and two‐dimensional (2D) percentage gamma passing rates (%GPs) for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors and investigated the correlation between two kinds of %GP. Eleven prostate IMRT cases were selected, and errors in multileaf collimator (MLC) bank sag, MLC leaf traveling, and machine output were simulated by recalculating the dose distributions in patients. 2D doses were extracted from the 3D doses at the isocenter position. The 3D and 2D %GPs with different gamma criteria were then obtained by comparing the recalculated and original doses in specific regions of interest (ROI), such as the whole body, the planning target volume (PTV), the bladder, and the rectum. The sensitivities to simulated errors of the two types of %GP were compared, and the correlation between the 2D and 3D %GPs for different ROIs were analyzed. For the whole‐body evaluation, both the 2D and 3D %GPs with the 3%/3 mm criterion were above 90% for all tested MLC errors and for MU deviations up to 4%, and the 3D %GP was higher than the 2D %GP. In organ‐specific evaluations, the PTV‐specific 2D and 3D %GP gradients were −4.70% and −5.14% per millimeter of the MLC traveling error, and −17.79% and −20.50% per percentage of MU error, respectively. However, a stricter criterion (2%/1 mm) was needed to detect the tested MLC sag error. The Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant strong correlation (r > 0.8 and P < 0.001) between the 2D and 3D %GPs in the whole body and PTV‐specific gamma evaluations. The whole‐body %GP with the 3%/3 mm criterion was inadequate to detect the tested MLC and MU errors, and a stricter criterion may be needed. The PTV‐specific gamma evaluation helped to improve the sensitivity of the error detection, especially using the 3D GP%. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6036388/ /pubmed/29905004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12389 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Zhang, Dandan
Wang, Bin
Zhang, Guangshun
Ma, Charlie
Deng, Xiaowu
Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors
title Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors
title_full Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors
title_fullStr Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors
title_short Comparison of 3D and 2D gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to IMRT delivery errors
title_sort comparison of 3d and 2d gamma passing rate criteria for detection sensitivity to imrt delivery errors
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6036388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29905004
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12389
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangdandan comparisonof3dand2dgammapassingratecriteriafordetectionsensitivitytoimrtdeliveryerrors
AT wangbin comparisonof3dand2dgammapassingratecriteriafordetectionsensitivitytoimrtdeliveryerrors
AT zhangguangshun comparisonof3dand2dgammapassingratecriteriafordetectionsensitivitytoimrtdeliveryerrors
AT macharlie comparisonof3dand2dgammapassingratecriteriafordetectionsensitivitytoimrtdeliveryerrors
AT dengxiaowu comparisonof3dand2dgammapassingratecriteriafordetectionsensitivitytoimrtdeliveryerrors