Correlation Between Gamma Index Passing Rate and Clinical Dosimetric Difference for Pre-treatment 2D and 3D Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Dosimetric Verification

Overview

Journal Br J Radiol

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Radiology

Date 2014 Dec 11

PMID 25494412

Citations 28

Authors

X Jin

H Yan

C Han

Y Zhou

J Yi

C Xie

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To investigate comparatively the percentage gamma passing rate (%GP) of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) pre-treatment volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetric verification and their correlation and sensitivity with percentage dosimetric errors (%DE).

Methods: %GP of 2D and 3D pre-treatment VMAT quality assurance (QA) with different acceptance criteria was obtained by ArcCHECK® (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL) for 20 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and 20 patients with oesophageal cancer. %DE were calculated from planned dose-volume histogram (DVH) and patients' predicted DVH calculated by 3DVH® software (Sun Nuclear Corporation). Correlation and sensitivity between %GP and %DE were investigated using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and receiver operating characteristics (ROCs).

Results: Relatively higher %DE on some DVH-based metrics were observed for both patients with NPC and oesophageal cancer. Except for 2%/2 mm criterion, the average %GPs for all patients undergoing VMAT were acceptable with average rates of 97.11% ± 1.54% and 97.39% ± 1.37% for 2D and 3D 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. The number of correlations for 3D was higher than that for 2D (21 vs 8). However, the general correlation was still poor for all the analysed metrics (9 out of 26 for 3D 3%/3 mm criterion). The average area under the curve (AUC) of ROCs was 0.66 ± 0.12 and 0.71 ± 0.21 for 2D and 3D evaluations, respectively.

Conclusions: There is a lack of correlation between %GP and %DE for both 2D and 3D pre-treatment VMAT dosimetric evaluation. DVH-based dose metrics evaluation obtained from 3DVH will provide more useful analysis.

Advances In Knowledge: Correlation and sensitivity of %GP with %DE for VMAT QA were studied for the first time.

Citing Articles

Feasibility study of structural similarity index for patient-specific quality assurance.

Lee J, Park H, Kang Y J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 26(3):e14591.

PMID: 39625100 PMC: 11905251. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14591.

Integrating plan complexity and dosiomics features with deep learning in patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Han C, Zhang J, Yu B, Zheng H, Wu Y, Lin Z Radiat Oncol. 2023; 18(1):116.

PMID: 37434171 PMC: 10334519. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-023-02311-7.

Evaluation of the dataset quality in gamma passing rate predictions using machine learning methods.

Quintero P, Benoit D, Cheng Y, Moore C, Beavis A Br J Radiol. 2023; 96(1147):20220302.

PMID: 37129359 PMC: 10321263. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20220302.

DIR-based models to predict weekly anatomical changes in head and neck cancer proton therapy.

Zhang Y, McGowan Holloway S, Zoe Wilson M, Alshaikhi J, Tan W, Royle G Phys Med Biol. 2022; 67(9).

PMID: 35316795 PMC: 10437002. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac5fe2.

A patient-specific QA comparison between 2D and 3D diode arrays for single-lesion SRS and SBRT treatments.

Lee Y, Kim Y J Radiosurg SBRT. 2021; 7(4):295-307.

PMID: 34631231 PMC: 8492049.

References

Verbakel W, Cuijpers J, Hoffmans D, Bieker M, Slotman B, Senan S . Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74(1):252-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.12.033. View

Korreman S, Medin J, Kjaer-Kristoffersen F . Dosimetric verification of RapidArc treatment delivery. Acta Oncol. 2008; 48(2):185-91. DOI: 10.1080/02841860802287116. View

Schreibmann E, Dhabaan A, Elder E, Fox T . Patient-specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery. Med Phys. 2009; 36(10):4530-5. DOI: 10.1118/1.3213085. View

Ezzell G, Burmeister J, Dogan N, LoSasso T, Mechalakos J, Mihailidis D . IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009; 36(11):5359-73. DOI: 10.1118/1.3238104. View

Feygelman V, Zhang G, Stevens C . Initial dosimetric evaluation of SmartArc - a novel VMAT treatment planning module implemented in a multi-vendor delivery chain. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010; 11(1):3169. PMC: 5719766. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i1.3169. View

Yan G, Lu B, Kozelka J, Liu C, Li J . Calibration of a novel four-dimensional diode array. Med Phys. 2010; 37(1):108-15. DOI: 10.1118/1.3266769. View

Rao M, Yang W, Chen F, Sheng K, Ye J, Mehta V . Comparison of Elekta VMAT with helical tomotherapy and fixed field IMRT: plan quality, delivery efficiency and accuracy. Med Phys. 2010; 37(3):1350-9. DOI: 10.1118/1.3326965. View

Yu C, Tang G . Intensity-modulated arc therapy: principles, technologies and clinical implementation. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(5):R31-54. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/5/R01. View

Nelms B, Zhen H, Tome W . Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011; 38(2):1037-44. PMC: 3188652. DOI: 10.1118/1.3544657. View

10.

Zhen H, Nelms B, Tome W . Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys. 2011; 38(10):5477-89. DOI: 10.1118/1.3633904. View

11.

Bailey D, Nelms B, Attwood K, Kumaraswamy L, Podgorsak M . Statistical variability and confidence intervals for planar dose QA pass rates. Med Phys. 2011; 38(11):6053-64. DOI: 10.1118/1.3651695. View

12.

ODaniel J, Das S, Wu Q, Yin F . Volumetric-modulated arc therapy: effective and efficient end-to-end patient-specific quality assurance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 82(5):1567-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.01.018. View

13.

Nelms B, Opp D, Robinson J, Wolf T, Zhang G, Moros E . VMAT QA: measurement-guided 4D dose reconstruction on a patient. Med Phys. 2012; 39(7):4228-38. DOI: 10.1118/1.4729709. View

14.

Carrasco P, Jornet N, Latorre A, Eudaldo T, Ruiz A, Ribas M . 3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. Med Phys. 2012; 39(8):5040-9. DOI: 10.1118/1.4736949. View

15.

Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Maggio A, Sapino V, Gabriele P . Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 2012; 39(12):7626-34. DOI: 10.1118/1.4767763. View

16.

Jin X, Yi J, Zhou Y, Yan H, Han C, Xie C . CRT combined with a sequential VMAT boost in the treatment of upper thoracic esophageal cancer. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013; 14(5):153-61. PMC: 5714557. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v14i5.4325. View

17.

Jin X, Yi J, Zhou Y, Yan H, Han C, Xie C . Comparison of whole-field simultaneous integrated boost VMAT and IMRT in the treatment of nasopharyngeal cancer. Med Dosim. 2013; 38(4):418-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2013.05.004. View

18.

Pallotta S, Marrazzo L, Bucciolini M . Design and implementation of a water phantom for IMRT, arc therapy, and tomotherapy dose distribution measurements. Med Phys. 2007; 34(10):3724-31. DOI: 10.1118/1.2776249. View

19.

Otto K . Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008; 35(1):310-7. DOI: 10.1118/1.2818738. View

20.

Bedford J, Hansen V, McNair H, Aitken A, Brock J, Warrington A . Treatment of lung cancer using volumetric modulated arc therapy and image guidance: a case study. Acta Oncol. 2008; 47(7):1438-43. DOI: 10.1080/02841860802282778. View