A study on correlation between 2D and 3D gamma evaluation metrics in patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT.

Autor:	Rajasekaran D; Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India. Electronic address: dhanabalanraj@gmail.com., Jeevanandam P; Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India., Sukumar P; Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India., Ranganathan A; Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India., Johnjothi S; Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India., Nagarajan V; Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Institute (WIA), Chennai, India.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists [Med Dosim] 2014 Winter; Vol. 39 (4), pp. 300-8. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Jun 06.
DOI:	10.1016/j.meddos.2014.05.002
Abstrakt:	In this study, we investigated the correlation between 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D gamma analysis using the new PTW OCTAVIUS 4D system for various parameters. For this study, we selected 150 clinically approved volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans of head and neck (50), thoracic (esophagus) (50), and pelvic (cervix) (50) sites. Individual verification plans were created and delivered to the OCTAVIUS 4D phantom. Measured and calculated dose distributions were compared using the 2D and 3D gamma analysis by global (maximum), local and selected (isocenter) dose methods. The average gamma passing rate for 2D global gamma analysis in coronal and sagittal plane was 94.81% ± 2.12% and 95.19% ± 1.76%, respectively, for commonly used 3-mm/3% criteria with 10% low-dose threshold. Correspondingly, for the same criteria, the average gamma passing rate for 3D planar global gamma analysis was 95.90% ± 1.57% and 95.61% ± 1.65%. The volumetric 3D gamma passing rate for 3-mm/3% (10% low-dose threshold) global gamma was 96.49% ± 1.49%. Applying stringent gamma criteria resulted in higher differences between 2D planar and 3D planar gamma analysis across all the global, local, and selected dose gamma evaluation methods. The average gamma passing rate for volumetric 3D gamma analysis was 1.49%, 1.36%, and 2.16% higher when compared with 2D planar analyses (coronal and sagittal combined average) for 3mm/3% global, local, and selected dose gamma analysis, respectively. On the basis of the wide range of analysis and correlation study, we conclude that there is no assured correlation or notable pattern that could provide relation between planar 2D and volumetric 3D gamma analysis. Owing to higher passing rates, higher action limits can be set while performing 3D quality assurance. Site-wise action limits may be considered for patient-specific QA in VMAT. (Copyright © 2014 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu