Technical Note: Relationships between gamma criteria and action levels: Results of a multicenter audit of gamma agreement index results

被引:35
作者
Crowe, Scott B. [1 ,2 ]
Sutherland, Bess [3 ]
Wilks, Rachael [1 ]
Seshadri, Venkatakrishnan [4 ]
Sylvander, Steven [1 ]
Trapp, Jamie V. [2 ]
Kairn, Tanya [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Royal Brisbane & Womens Hosp, Butterfield St, Herston, Qld 4029, Australia
[2] Queensland Univ Technol, Fac Sci & Engn, 2 George St, Brisbane, Qld 4000, Australia
[3] Genesis Canc Care Queensland, 1-40 Chasely St, Auchenflower, Qld 4066, Australia
[4] Princess Alexandra Hosp, 199 Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, Qld 4102, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
radiation therapy; quality assurance; gamma evaluation; INTENSITY-MODULATED RADIOTHERAPY; PRETREATMENT QUALITY-ASSURANCE; VMAT VERIFICATION; DIODE-ARRAY; IMRT QA; DOSIMETRY; DELIVERY; TOMOTHERAPY; RAPIDARC; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1118/1.4942488
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this work was to use a multicenter audit of modulated radiotherapy quality assurance (QA) data to provide a practical examination of gamma evaluation criteria and action level selection. The use of the gamma evaluation method for patient-specific pretreatment QA is widespread, with most commercial solutions implementing the method. Methods: Gamma agreement indices were calculated using the criteria 1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 5%/3 mm for 1265 pretreatment QA measurements, planned at seven treatment centers, using four different treatment planning systems, delivered using three different delivery systems (intensity-modulated radiation therapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and helical tomotherapy) and measured using three different dose measurement systems. The sensitivity of each pair of gamma criteria was evaluated relative to the gamma agreement indices calculated using 3%/3 mm. Results: A linear relationship was observed for 2%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm. This result implies that most beams failing at 3%/3 mm would also fail for those criteria, if the action level was adjusted appropriately. Some borderline plans might be passed or failed depending on the relative priority (tighter tolerance) used for dose difference or distance to agreement evaluation. Dosimeter resolution and treatment modality were found to have a smaller effect on the results of QA measurements than the number of dimensions (2D or 3D) over which the gamma evaluation was calculated. Conclusions: This work provides a method (and a large sample of results) for calculating equivalent action levels for different gamma evaluation criteria. This work constitutes a valuable guide for clinical decision making and a means to compare published gamma evaluation results from studies using different evaluation criteria. More generally, the data provided by this work support the recommendation that gamma criteria that specifically prioritize the property of greatest clinical importance for each treatment modality of anatomical site should be selected when using gamma evaluations for modulated radiotherapy QA. It is therefore suggested that departments using the gamma evaluation as a QA analysis tool should consider the relative importance of dose difference and distance to agreement, when selecting gamma evaluation criteria. (C) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:1501 / 1506
页数:6
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems
    Bailey, Daniel W.
    Kumaraswamy, Lalith
    Bakhtiari, Mohammad
    Malhotra, Harish K.
    Podgorsak, Matthew B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 13 (04): : 82 - 99
  • [2] Evaluation of the Delta4 phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification
    Bedford, James L.
    Lee, Young K.
    Wai, Philip
    South, Christopher P.
    Warrington, Alan P.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2009, 54 (09) : N167 - N176
  • [3] Effects of changing modulation and pitch parameters on tomotherapy delivery quality assurance plans
    Binny, Diana
    Lancaster, Craig M.
    Harris, Selina
    Sylvander, Steven R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2015, 16 (05): : 87 - 105
  • [4] Tomotherapy treatment plan quality assurance: The impact of applied criteria on passing rate in gamma index method
    Bresciani, Sara
    Di Dia, Amalia
    Maggio, Angelo
    Cutaia, Claudia
    Miranti, Anna
    Infusino, Erminia
    Stasi, Michele
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (12)
  • [5] A snapshot of radiation therapy techniques and technology in Queensland: An aid to mapping undergraduate curriculum
    Bridge, Pete
    Carmichael, Mary-Ann
    Brady, Carole
    Dry, Allison
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL RADIATION SCIENCES, 2013, 60 (01): : 25 - 34
  • [6] Comparison of four commercial devices for RapidArc and sliding window IMRT QA
    Chandraraj, Varatharaj
    Stathakis, Sotirios
    Manickam, Ravikumar
    Esquivel, Carlos
    Supe, Sanjay S.
    Papanikolaou, Nikos
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED CLINICAL MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2011, 12 (02): : 338 - 349
  • [7] Examination of the properties of IMRT and VMAT beams and evaluation against pre-treatment quality assurance results
    Crowe, S. B.
    Kairn, T.
    Middlebrook, N.
    Sutherland, B.
    Hill, B.
    Kenny, J.
    Langton, C. M.
    Trapp, J. V.
    [J]. PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2015, 60 (06) : 2587 - 2601
  • [8] Highly cited papers in Medical Physics
    Eaton, David J.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 41 (08) : 43 - 44
  • [9] IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119
    Ezzell, Gary A.
    Burmeister, Jay W.
    Dogan, Nesrin
    LoSasso, Thomas J.
    Mechalakos, James G.
    Mihailidis, Dimitris
    Molineu, Andrea
    Palta, Jatinder R.
    Ramsey, Chester R.
    Salter, Bill J.
    Shi, Jie
    Xia, Ping
    Yue, Ning J.
    Xiao, Ying
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2009, 36 (11) : 5359 - 5373
  • [10] García-Vicente F, 2012, J APPL CLIN MED PHYS, V13, P111, DOI 10.1120/jacmp.v13i1.3660