» Articles » PMID: 36337776

Gamma Index Analysis As a Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Tool for High-Precision Radiotherapy: A Clinical Perspective of Single Institute Experience

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2022 Nov 7
PMID 36337776
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) by gamma (γ) analysis is an important component of high-precision radiotherapy. It is important to standardize institute-specific protocol. In this study, we describe our institutional experience of patient-specific QA for high-precision radiotherapy from a clinical perspective. Methods The planning data of 56 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were included. γ index analysis was done using Octavius 4D IMRT QA phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) using 3 mm/3% criteria. Local, global, and volumetric gammas were calculated and compared. The relationship of γ index in the transverse, coronal, and sagittal direction and anatomical region of treatment was explored. Results Global three-dimensional (3D) γ indices in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse axes were 96.73 ± 2.35, 95.66 ± 3.01, and 93.36 ± 4.87 (p < 0.05). The average local two-dimensional (2D) γ index was 78.23 ± 5.44 and the global γ index was 92.41 ± 2.41 (p < 0.005). The average local 3D γ index was 84.99 ± 4.24 and the global 3D γ index was 95.25 ± 1.72 (p < 0.005, paired t-test). The average local volumetric γ index was 84.29 ± 4.73 and the global volumetric γ index was 95.96 ± 2.08 (p < 0.005). 3D global gamma index was significantly different in different anatomical regions (p < 0.05). Conclusion Our study shows that γ index analysis is a useful parameter for routine clinical IMRT QA. The choice of type of γ index depends on the context of use and degree of stringency in measurement. Average 2D and 3D global γ were different in anatomical regions. The average 3D γ index was significantly different in axes. No difference was observed with techniques of IMRT/VMAT. Localization of failed points in CT anatomy can be advantageous for clinical decision-making.

Citing Articles

Comparative Study of Fluence Distribution and Point Dose Using Arc-check and Delta Phantoms.

Singh S, Bhushan M, Singh B, Kumar A, Dipesh , Singh A J Med Phys. 2025; 49(4):706-709.

PMID: 39926143 PMC: 11801088. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_130_24.

References
1.
Park J, Kim J, Park S, Oh D, Kim S . Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Radiat Oncol. 2018; 13(1):175. PMC: 6137931. DOI: 10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x. View

2.
Hussein M, Clark C, Nisbet A . Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy - Towards good practice. Phys Med. 2017; 36:1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.001. View

3.
Stathakis S, Mavroidis P, Shi C, Xu J, Kauweloa K, Narayanasamy G . γ+ index: A new evaluation parameter for quantitative quality assurance. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2014; 114(1):60-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2014.01.005. View

4.
Low D, Harms W, Mutic S, Purdy J . A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998; 25(5):656-61. DOI: 10.1118/1.598248. View

5.
Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A . Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018; 45(4):e53-e83. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12810. View