Cargando…
Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons
PURPOSE: In this work we have developed a novel method of dose distribution comparison, the inverse gamma (IG) evaluation, by modifying the commonly used gamma evaluation method. METHODS: The IG evaluation calculates the gamma criteria (dose difference criterion, ΔD, or distance‐to‐agreement criteri...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31282112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12606 |
_version_ | 1783432918574563328 |
---|---|
author | Yu, Liting Kairn, Tanya Trapp, Jamie Crowe, Scott B. |
author_facet | Yu, Liting Kairn, Tanya Trapp, Jamie Crowe, Scott B. |
author_sort | Yu, Liting |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: In this work we have developed a novel method of dose distribution comparison, the inverse gamma (IG) evaluation, by modifying the commonly used gamma evaluation method. METHODS: The IG evaluation calculates the gamma criteria (dose difference criterion, ΔD, or distance‐to‐agreement criterion, Δd) that are needed to achieve a predefined pass rate or gamma agreement index (GAI). In‐house code for evaluating IG with a fixed ΔD of 3% was developed using Python (v3.5.2) and investigated using treatment plans and measurement data from 25 retrospective patient specific quality assurance tests (53 individual arcs). RESULTS: It was found that when the desired GAI was set to 95%, approximately three quarters of the arcs tested were able to achieve Δd within 1 mm (mean Δd: 0.7 ± 0.5 mm). The mean Δd required in order for all points to pass the gamma evaluation (i.e., GAI = 100%) was 4.5 ± 3.1 mm. The possibility of evaluating IG by fixing the Δd or ΔD/Δd, instead of fixing the ΔD at 3%, was also investigated. CONCLUSION: The IG method and its indices have the potential to be implemented clinically to quantify the minimum dose and distance criteria based on a specified GAI. This method provides additional information to augment standard gamma evaluation results during patient specific quality assurance testing of individual treatment plans. The IG method also has the potential to be used in retrospective audits to determine an appropriate set of local gamma criteria and action levels based on a cohort of patient specific quality assurance plans. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6612697 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66126972019-07-16 Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons Yu, Liting Kairn, Tanya Trapp, Jamie Crowe, Scott B. J Appl Clin Med Phys Technical Note PURPOSE: In this work we have developed a novel method of dose distribution comparison, the inverse gamma (IG) evaluation, by modifying the commonly used gamma evaluation method. METHODS: The IG evaluation calculates the gamma criteria (dose difference criterion, ΔD, or distance‐to‐agreement criterion, Δd) that are needed to achieve a predefined pass rate or gamma agreement index (GAI). In‐house code for evaluating IG with a fixed ΔD of 3% was developed using Python (v3.5.2) and investigated using treatment plans and measurement data from 25 retrospective patient specific quality assurance tests (53 individual arcs). RESULTS: It was found that when the desired GAI was set to 95%, approximately three quarters of the arcs tested were able to achieve Δd within 1 mm (mean Δd: 0.7 ± 0.5 mm). The mean Δd required in order for all points to pass the gamma evaluation (i.e., GAI = 100%) was 4.5 ± 3.1 mm. The possibility of evaluating IG by fixing the Δd or ΔD/Δd, instead of fixing the ΔD at 3%, was also investigated. CONCLUSION: The IG method and its indices have the potential to be implemented clinically to quantify the minimum dose and distance criteria based on a specified GAI. This method provides additional information to augment standard gamma evaluation results during patient specific quality assurance testing of individual treatment plans. The IG method also has the potential to be used in retrospective audits to determine an appropriate set of local gamma criteria and action levels based on a cohort of patient specific quality assurance plans. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6612697/ /pubmed/31282112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12606 Text en © 2019 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 | Technical Note Yu, Liting Kairn, Tanya Trapp, Jamie Crowe, Scott B. Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
title | Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
title_full | Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
title_fullStr | Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
title_full_unstemmed | Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
title_short | Technical note: A modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
title_sort | technical note: a modified gamma evaluation method for dose distribution comparisons |
topic | Technical Note |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612697/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31282112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12606 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yuliting technicalnoteamodifiedgammaevaluationmethodfordosedistributioncomparisons AT kairntanya technicalnoteamodifiedgammaevaluationmethodfordosedistributioncomparisons AT trappjamie technicalnoteamodifiedgammaevaluationmethodfordosedistributioncomparisons AT crowescottb technicalnoteamodifiedgammaevaluationmethodfordosedistributioncomparisons |