[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
IJRR Information::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Subscription::
News & Events::
Web Mail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
ISSN
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
..
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.
..

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE

:: Volume 21, Issue 3 (7-2023) ::
Int J Radiat Res 2023, 21(3): 505-512 Back to browse issues page
Gamma analysis of patient specific quality assurance by hybrid acceptance criterion method
A. Watcharawipha , I. Chitapanarux
Division of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand , imjai@hotmail.com
Abstract:   (1721 Views)
Background: Gamma analysis is an effective tool used to verify treatment plan accuracy with regard to patient specific quality assurance. In this method, accuracy is validated through the major parameters presented in the acceptance criterion (AC). The Hybrid AC (HAC) method has been proposed and validated via the Traditional AC (TAC) method of comparison. Materials and Methods: The performance of the HAC method was investigated through one-dimensional (1D) relative dose profile and clinical planar dose distribution. By employing the HAC method, Gamma values were observed at different regions of the profile as well as at the different treatment sites of clinical planar dose distribution. Both results were compared by employing the TAC method, but only planar dose distribution was analyzed by 95% confidence interval of statistics. Results: The results of the HAC method indicate higher Gamma values at the penumbra of the dose profile when compared with the results of the TAC method. In low dose and high dose areas, both methods produced comparable results. In terms of planar dose distribution, the proposed method demonstrated a higher degree of sensitivity than the TAC method by indicating low values for the Gamma passing rate at all treatment sites. Conclusion: The HAC method could effectively increase the sensitivity of the tool at a high dose gradient of planar dose distribution, whereas it had no impact on the area of the low dose gradient. Therefore, this method could be an alternative option for evaluation of treatment planning accuracy in clinical practice.
Keywords: Gamma index, gamma analysis, patient specific quality assurance, acceptance criterion, dose distribution.
Full-Text [PDF 1049 kb]   (812 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology
References
1. 1. Ozturk N, Ozbek N, Depboylu B (2022) Dosimetric comparison of IMRT, VMAT and HYBRID treatment methods in radical radiation therapy of prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Res, 20(2): 411-416. [DOI:10.52547/ijrr.20.2.23]
2. Trivedi G, Oinam A, Singh YB, Vasudeva T (2021) Dosimetric comparison of three different radiotherapy techniques (3DCRT, ECOMP & VMAT) for breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Res, 19(2): 371-379. [DOI:10.52547/ijrr.19.2.16]
3. Guo M, Zhao X, Huang Y, et al. (2022) The dosimetric and clinical comparison between helical tomotherapy and fixed-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy in radical irradiation for cervical cancer. Int J Radiat Re, 20(2): 377-382. [DOI:10.52547/ijrr.20.2.18]
4. Kongsa A, Chitapanarux I, Watcharawipha A, et al. (2023) Improvement of matching fields using coplanar field border method in postmastectomy radiotherapy. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice, 22(e8): 1-8. [DOI:10.1017/S1460396921000431]
5. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, et al. (1998) A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys, 25(5): 656-661. [DOI:10.1118/1.598248] [PMID]
6. Klunklin P, Manoharn T, Wanwilairat S, et al. (2021) Analysis of the planned, delivered dose distributions and quality assurance for helical tomotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 26(6): 939-947. [DOI:10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0113] [PMID] []
7. Varatharaj C, Ravikumar M, Sathiyan S, et al. (2010) Dosimetric verification of brain and head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment using EDR2 films and 2D ion chamber array matrix. J Cancer Res Ther, 6(2): 179-184. [DOI:10.4103/0973-1482.65233] [PMID]
8. Szczurek L, Juszkat R, Szczurek J, et al. (2019) 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, 14(8): e0221086. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0221086] [PMID] []
9. Agazaryan N, Solberg TD, DeMarco JJ (2003) Patient specific quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 4(1): 40-50. [DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2540] [PMID] []
10. Pal B, Pal A, Bag S, Ali MA, Das S, Palit, et al. (2021) Comparative performance analysis of 2D and 3D gamma metrics for patient specific QA in VMAT using Octavius 4D with 2D-Array 1500. Physica Medica, 91: 18-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.10.011] [PMID]
11. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, et al. (2009) IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys, 36(11): 5359-5373. [DOI:10.1118/1.3238104] [PMID]
12. Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, et al. (2018) Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No.218. Med Phys, 45(4): e53-e83. [DOI:10.1002/mp.12810] [PMID]
13. Saminathan S, Manickam R, Chandraraj V (2011) Plan evaluation and dosimetric comparison of IMRT using AAPM TG119 test suites and recommendations. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med, 34(1): 55-61. [DOI:10.1007/s13246-011-0058-4] [PMID]
14. Park JM, Kim Ji, Park SY, et al. (2018) Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Radiat Oncol, 13: 175. [DOI:10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x] [PMID] []
15. Garcia Q, Solis C, Salazar V, Ramos C (2022) Evaluation of the impact of parameters on the gamma index for breast cancer treatments. Rev Mex Fis, 67(6): 1-6. [DOI:10.31349/RevMexFis.67.061101]
16. Song JH, Kim MJ, Park SH, et al. (2015) Gamma analysis dependence on specified low-dose thresholds for VMAT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 16(6): 263-272. [DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5696] [PMID] []
17. Heilemann G, Poppe B, Laub W (2013) On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys, 40(3): 031702. [DOI:10.1118/1.4789580] [PMID]
18. Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Shragge PC (1993) Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 26(2): 261-273. [DOI:10.1016/0360-3016(93)90206-B] [PMID]
19. International Commission on Radiation Units and measurements. (2012) The ICRU Report 83: prescribing, recording and reporting photon-beam intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Strahlenther Onkol, 188(1): 97-99.
20. Yu L, Tang TLS, Cassim N, et al. (2019) Analysis of dose comparison techniques for patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 20(11): 189-198. [DOI:10.1002/acm2.12726] [PMID] []
21. Kathirvel M, Subramani V, Subramanian VS, et al. (2017) Dosimetric comparison of head and neck cancer patients planned with multivendor volumetric modulated arc therapy technology. J Can Res Ther, 13(1):122-130. [DOI:10.4103/0973-1482.203600] [PMID]
22. Stieler F, Wolff D, Schmid H, et al. (2011) A comparison of several modulated radiotherapy techniques for head and neck cancer and dosimetric validation of VMAT. Radiother Oncol, 101(3): 388-393. [DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2011.08.023] [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA



XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Watcharawipha A, Chitapanarux I. Gamma analysis of patient specific quality assurance by hybrid acceptance criterion method. Int J Radiat Res 2023; 21 (3) :505-512
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-4892-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 21, Issue 3 (7-2023) Back to browse issues page
International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4710