Cargando…

Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans

BACKGROUND: We investigate the gamma passing rate (GPR) consistency when applying different types of gamma analyses, linacs, and dosimeters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: A total of 240 VMAT plans for various treatment sites, which were generated with Trilogy (140 plans) and T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Jong Min, Kim, Jung-in, Park, So-Yeon, Oh, Do Hoon, Kim, Sang-Tae
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30217163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x
_version_ 1783355259018543104
author Park, Jong Min
Kim, Jung-in
Park, So-Yeon
Oh, Do Hoon
Kim, Sang-Tae
author_facet Park, Jong Min
Kim, Jung-in
Park, So-Yeon
Oh, Do Hoon
Kim, Sang-Tae
author_sort Park, Jong Min
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We investigate the gamma passing rate (GPR) consistency when applying different types of gamma analyses, linacs, and dosimeters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: A total of 240 VMAT plans for various treatment sites, which were generated with Trilogy (140 plans) and TrueBeam STx (100 plans), were retrospectively selected. For each VMAT plan, planar dose distributions were measured with both MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK dosimeters. During the planar dose distribution measurements, the actual multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, gantry angles, and delivered monitor units were recorded and compared to the values in the original VMAT plans to calculate mechanical errors. For each VMAT plan, both the global and local gamma analyses were performed with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, 1%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated 1) between the global and the local GPRs, 2) between GPRs with the MapCHECK2 and the ArcCHECK dosimeters, 3) and between GPRs and the mechanical errors during the VMAT delivery. RESULTS: For the MapCHECK2 measurements, strong correlations between the global and local GPRs were observed only with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm (r > 0.8 with p < 0.001), while weak or no correlations were observed for the ArcCHECK measurement. Between the MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK measurements, the global GPRs showed no correlations (all with p > 0.05), while the local GPRs showed moderate correlations only with 2%/1 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx (r > 0.5 with p < 0.001). Both the global and local GPRs always showed weak or no correlations with the MLC positional errors except for the GPRs of MapCHECK2 with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx and the GPR of ArcCHECK with 1%/2 mm for Trilogy (r < − 0.5 with p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The GPRs varied according to the types of gamma analyses, dosimeters, and linacs. Therefore, each institution should carefully establish their own gamma analysis protocol by determining the type of gamma index analysis and the gamma criterion with their own linac and their own dosimeter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6137931
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61379312018-09-15 Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans Park, Jong Min Kim, Jung-in Park, So-Yeon Oh, Do Hoon Kim, Sang-Tae Radiat Oncol Research BACKGROUND: We investigate the gamma passing rate (GPR) consistency when applying different types of gamma analyses, linacs, and dosimeters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). METHODS: A total of 240 VMAT plans for various treatment sites, which were generated with Trilogy (140 plans) and TrueBeam STx (100 plans), were retrospectively selected. For each VMAT plan, planar dose distributions were measured with both MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK dosimeters. During the planar dose distribution measurements, the actual multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, gantry angles, and delivered monitor units were recorded and compared to the values in the original VMAT plans to calculate mechanical errors. For each VMAT plan, both the global and local gamma analyses were performed with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, 1%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated 1) between the global and the local GPRs, 2) between GPRs with the MapCHECK2 and the ArcCHECK dosimeters, 3) and between GPRs and the mechanical errors during the VMAT delivery. RESULTS: For the MapCHECK2 measurements, strong correlations between the global and local GPRs were observed only with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm (r > 0.8 with p < 0.001), while weak or no correlations were observed for the ArcCHECK measurement. Between the MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK measurements, the global GPRs showed no correlations (all with p > 0.05), while the local GPRs showed moderate correlations only with 2%/1 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx (r > 0.5 with p < 0.001). Both the global and local GPRs always showed weak or no correlations with the MLC positional errors except for the GPRs of MapCHECK2 with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx and the GPR of ArcCHECK with 1%/2 mm for Trilogy (r < − 0.5 with p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The GPRs varied according to the types of gamma analyses, dosimeters, and linacs. Therefore, each institution should carefully establish their own gamma analysis protocol by determining the type of gamma index analysis and the gamma criterion with their own linac and their own dosimeter. BioMed Central 2018-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6137931/ /pubmed/30217163 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Park, Jong Min
Kim, Jung-in
Park, So-Yeon
Oh, Do Hoon
Kim, Sang-Tae
Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
title Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
title_full Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
title_fullStr Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
title_short Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
title_sort reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30217163
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x
work_keys_str_mv AT parkjongmin reliabilityofthegammaindexanalysisasaverificationmethodofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplans
AT kimjungin reliabilityofthegammaindexanalysisasaverificationmethodofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplans
AT parksoyeon reliabilityofthegammaindexanalysisasaverificationmethodofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplans
AT ohdohoon reliabilityofthegammaindexanalysisasaverificationmethodofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplans
AT kimsangtae reliabilityofthegammaindexanalysisasaverificationmethodofvolumetricmodulatedarctherapyplans