A comprehensive and clinical‐oriented evaluation criteria based on DVH information and gamma passing rates analysis for IMRT plan 3D verification

PURPOSE: To accomplish the 3D dose verification to IMRT plan by incorporating DVH information and gamma passing rates (GPs) (DVH_GPs) so as to better correlate the patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) results with clinically relevant metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DVH_GPs analysis was performed to specific structures of 51 intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans (17 plans each for oropharyngeal neoplasm, esophageal neoplasm, and cervical neoplasm) with Delta4 3D dose verification system. Based on the DVH action levels of 5% and GPs action levels of 90% (3%/2 mm), the evaluation results of DVH_GPs analysis were categorized into four regions as follows: the true positive (TP) (%DE> 5%, GPs < 90%), the false positive (FP) (%DE ≤ 5%, GPs < 90%), the false negative (FN) (%DE> 5%, GPs ≥ 90%), and the true negative (TN) (%DE ≤ 5%, GPs ≥ 90%). Considering the actual situation, the final patient‐specific QA determination was made based on the DVH_GPs evaluation results. In order to exclude the impact of Delta4 phantom on the DVH_GPs evaluation results, 5 cm phantom shift verification was carried out to structures with abnormal results (femoral heads, lung, heart). RESULTS: In DVH_GPs evaluation, 58 cases with FN, 5 cases with FP, and 2 cases with TP were observed. After the phantom shift verification, the extremely abnormal FN of both lung (%DE = 21.52%±8.20%) and heart (%DE = 19.76%) in the oropharyngeal neoplasm plans and of the bilateral formal heads (%DE = 26.41%±13.45%) in cervical neoplasm plans disappeared dramatically. DVH_GPs analysis was performed to all evaluation results in combination with clinical treatment criteria. Finally, only one TP case from the oropharyngeal neoplasm plans and one FN case from the esophageal neoplasm plans did not meet the treatment requirements, so they needed to be replanned. CONCLUSION: The proposed DVH_GPs evaluation method first make up the deficiency of conventional gamma analysis regarding intensity information and space information. Moreover, it improves the correlation between the patient‐specific QA results and clinically relevant metrics. Finally, it can distinguish the TP, TN, FP, and FN in the evaluation results. They are affected by many factors such as the action levels of DVH and GPs, the feature of the specific structure, the QA device, etc. Therefore, medical physicist should make final patient‐specific QA decision not only by taking into account the information of DVH and GPs, but also the practical situation.