Advertisement

Statistical analysis of correlation of gamma passing results for two quality assurance phantoms used for patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy

      Abstract

      Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) data must be migrated from outdated QA systems to new ones to produce objective results that can be understood by oncologists. We aimed to evaluate a method for obtaining a high correlation of dose distributions according to various gamma passing rates among two types of 2D detectors for the migration of patient-specific QA data of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The patient-specific QA of 20 patients undergoing VMAT was measured in two different modes: standard single measurement (SM) mode and multiple merged measurements (MM) techniques using ArcCHECK (AC) and OCTAVIUS (OT). The correlation of the measured and calculated dose distributions was evaluated according to varying gamma passing rates (3%/3 mm, 2%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm). The gamma passing rates were analyzed using the Anderson–Darling normality test. Treatment plan dose distributions were calculated by intentionally shifting the calculation isocenter position (x,y,z ± 0.5, ± 1.0, ± 1.5, and ± 2.0 mm). The highest correlation between the SM and MM was observed with a gamma passing rate of 1%/1 mm with AC (r = 0.866) and 3%/2 mm with OT (r = 0.916). However, SM and MM did not follow a normal distribution with a rate of 3%/2 mm in OT. The second-highest correlation was obtained with a rate of 2%/2 mm (r = 0.900). Among the two 2D detectors, the highest correlation between the calculated and measured dose distributions was obtained for a gamma passing rate of 1%/1 mm using SM in AC and 2%/2 mm using MM in OT (r = 0.716). Adjusting the gamma passing rate and measurement mode of AC and OT resulted in higher correlations between measured and calculated dose distributions. The high correlation between different 2D detectors objectively indicated a potential migration method. This enabled the sharing of more accurate patient-specific QA data from 2D detectors with different phantoms. A high correlation was observed between the two types of detectors in this study (r = 0.716); therefore, the proposed method should be useful for oncologists to share information regarding patient-specific QA for VMAT.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Medical Dosimetry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ezzell GA
        • Galvin JM
        • Low D
        • et al.
        Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT subcommittee of the AAPM radiation therapy committee.
        Med. Phys. 2003; 30: 2089-2115https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1591194
        • Oderinde OM
        • Du Plessis F.
        Sensitivity evaluation of two commercial quality assurance systems to organ-dose variations of patient-specific VMAT plans.
        J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2019; 12: 132-139https://doi.org/10.1080/16878507.2019.1618080
        • Chaswal V
        • Weldon M
        • Gupta N
        • et al.
        Commissioning and comprehensive evaluation of the ArcCHECK cylindrical diode detector for VMAT pretreatment delivery QA.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2014; 15: 212-225https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4832
        • Hussein M
        • Adams EJ
        • Jordan TJ
        • et al.
        A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D-DETECTOR seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2013; 14: 4460https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v14i6.4460
        • Nelms BE
        • Zhen H
        • WA Tome
        Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.
        Med. Phys. 2011; 38: 1037-1044https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3544657
        • Woon W
        • Ravindran PB
        • Ekayanake P
        • et al.
        A study on the effect of detector resolution on γ index passing rate for VMAT and IMRT QA.
        J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 2018; 19: 230-248https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12285
        • Ford E
        • Conroy L
        • Dong L
        Strategies for effective physics plan and chart review in radiation therapy. Report of the AAPM Task Group.
        Med. Phys. 2020; 275: e236-e272https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14030
        • Tanabe Y
        • Eto H.
        Evaluation of patient-specific motion management for radiotherapy planning computed tomography using a statistical method.
        Med. Dosim. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2021.12.002
        • Miften M
        • Olch A
        • Mihailidis D
        • et al.
        Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of the AAPM Task Group No. 218.
        Med. Phys. 2018; 45: e53-e83https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12810
        • Szczurek L
        • Juszkat R
        • Szczurek J
        • et al.
        Pre-treatment 2D and 3D dosimetric verification of volumetric arc therapy. A correlation study between gamma index passing rate and clinical dose volume histogram.
        Plos ONE. 2019; 14e0221086https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221086
        • Poppe B
        • Blechschmidt A
        • Djouguela A
        • et al.
        Two-dimensional ionization chamber arrays for IMRT plan verification.
        Med. Phys. 2006; 33: 1005-1015https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2179167
        • Aristophanous M
        • Suh Y
        • Chi PC
        • et al.
        Initial clinical experience with ArcCHECK for IMRT/VMAT QA.
        J. App. Clin. Med. Phys. 2016; 17: 20-33https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v17i5.6118
        • Park JM
        • Kim JI
        • Park SY
        • et al.
        Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans.
        Radiat. Oncol. 2018; 13: 175https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x
        • Park S-Y
        • Park JM
        • Choi CH
        • et al.
        Optimal density assignment to 2D diode array detector for different dose calculation algorithms in patient specific VMAT QA.
        J. Radiat. Prot. Res. 2017; 42: 9-15https://doi.org/10.14407/jrpr.2017.42.1.9