|
Correlation analysis between 2D and 3D patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy
|
S. Sharma   , D. Sharma , V. Subramani , N. Gopishankar , S. Bhaskar , S. Pathy , P.Kumar Kumar , S. Thulkar , S. Chander |
| Department of Radiotherapy, Dr. B. R. A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India , seema_drp@yahoo.co.in |
|
|
Abstract: (1124 Views) |
Background: Aim is to find correlation between 2D-gamma passing rate and 3D-DVH-based pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance. Materials and Methods: 21 head and neck and 21 pelvis patients, treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were selected for this study. All patients were planned with Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator using Monaco (5.11) treatment planning system. 2D-planar dose measurements were performed with IBA-I'matriXX evolution detector-array using My-QA-Patients software. For 2D-Gamma index evaluation, 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm criteria were used. 3D-dose measurements were performed using the IBA-COMPASS system. For 3D measurement, Monaco and COMPASS doses were compared in terms of percentage dose differences to PTV and organs at risk. For PTV D95, D2, and D50 (dose received by 95%, 2%, and 50% volume), similarly for OARs D2 and D50 were noted. 3D Gamma index was also noted. Correlation coefficient and its corresponding two-tailed p-value (≤0.05, for statistically significant) were calculated for 2D-gamma passing rate and 3D Gamma index & percentage dose differences of 3D-DVH based metrics (Monaco calculated versus COMPASS measured). Strength of correlation will be considered weak or strong based on the r -value. Results: 2D-Gamma index passing rate was 98.6±1.8%, 92.1±7.1% and 98.5±1.3%, 93.5±4.4% for head-neck and pelvis patients (3%/3mm, 2%/2mm criteria) respectively. Percentage dose-differences for PTV D95, D2, D50 for head-neck and pelvis were: 4.22±2.09%, 4.25±2.23%, 3.93±1.59 & 0.60±1.96%, 1.53±1.64%, 1.59±1.20% respectively. Spine and brainstem D2 were -0.84±6.10%, 0.77±2.70%, bladder and rectum D50 were 3.75±3.31%, -2.19±3.60%. Conclusion: No strong correlation was observed between the 2D Gamma passing rate and 3D measurements. |
|
| Keywords: Patient specific QA, 2D measurements, COMPASS QA, Correlation analysis. |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 833 kb]
(677 Downloads)
|
|
Type of Study: Original Research |
Subject:
Radiation Biology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
1. Yu CX (1995) Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. Phys Med Biol, 40(9): 1435-1449. [ DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/40/9/004] [ PMID] 2. Ibbott GS, Followill DS, Molineu A, et al. (2008) Challenges in credentialling institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 71: S71-S75. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.083] [ PMID] [ ] 3. 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] 4. Low DA, Moran JM, Dempsey JF, et al. (2011) Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. Med Phys, 38(3): 1313-1338. [A Report from AAPM TG-120]. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3514120] [ PMID] 5. Alber M, Broggi S, De Wagter C, et al. (2008) Guidelines for the verification of IMRT. [ESTRO BOOKLET NO. 9] 6. B. A. Fraass (2008) Errors in radiotherapy: motivation for the development of new radiotherapy quality assurance paradigms. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 71(1): S162-5. [ DOI:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.05.090] [ PMID] 7. Carrasco P, Jornet N, Latorre A, et al. (2012) 3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. Med Phys, 39(8): 5040-5049. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4736949] [ PMID] 8. Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tome WA (2011) Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys, 38(10): 5477-5489. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3633904] [ PMID] 9. Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé WA (2011) Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys, 38(2): 1037-1044. [ DOI:10.1118/1.3544657] [ PMID] [ ] 10. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S (1998) A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys, 25(5): 656-661. [ DOI:10.1118/1.598248] [ PMID] 11. Low DA and Dempsey JF (2003) Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys, 30(9): 2455-2464. [ DOI:10.1118/1.1598711] [ PMID] 12. Narloch N (2013) On the clinically relevant detector resolution and error detection capability of COMPASS 3D plan verification [white paper]. Schwarzenbruck, Germany: IBA Dosimetry GmbH. 13. Pulliam KB, Huang JY, Howell RM, et al. (2014) Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses. Med Phys, 41(2): 021710-1-6. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4860195] [ PMID] [ ] 14. Kim JI, Choi CH, Wu HG, et al. (2017) Correlation analysis between 2D and quasi-3D gamma evaluations for both intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. Oncotarget, 8(3): 5449-5459. [ DOI:10.18632/oncotarget.12279] [ PMID] [ ] 15. Wu C, Hosier KE, Beck KE, et al. (2012) On using 3D γ-analysis for IMRT and VMAT pre-treatment plan QA. Med Phys, 39(6): 3051-3059. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4711755] [ PMID] 16. Rajasekaran D, Jeevanandam P, Sukumar P, et al. (2014) A study on the correlation between 2D and 3D gamma evaluation metrics in patient-specific quality assurance for VMAT. Med Dosim, 39(4): 300-308. [ DOI:10.1016/j.meddos.2014.05.002] [ PMID] 17. Yi J, Han C, Zheng X, et al. (2017) Individual volume-based 3D gamma indices for pretreatment VMAT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 18(3): 28-36. [ DOI:10.1002/acm2.12062] [ PMID] [ ] 18. Jin X, Yan H, Han C, et al. (2015) Correlation between gamma index passing rate and clinical dosimetric difference for pre-treatment 2D and 3D volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric verification. Br J Radiol. 88(1047):20140577-1-8. [ DOI:10.1259/bjr.20140577] [ PMID] [ ] 19. Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, et al. (2012) Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys, 39(12): 7626-7634. [ DOI:10.1118/1.4767763] [ PMID] 20. Visser R, Wauben DJ, de Groot M, et al. (2014) Evaluation of DVH-based treatment plan verification in addition to gamma passing rates for head and neck IMRT. Radiother Oncol, 112(3): 389-395. [ DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.002] [ PMID] 21. Guo Y, Hu J, Li Y, et al. (2023) Correlation between patient-specific quality assurance in volumetric modulated arc therapy and 2D dose image features. Scientific Reports, 13: 4051. [ DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-30719-4] [ PMID] [ ] 22. Low C, Toye W, Phung P, Huston C (2018) Patient-specific quality assurance protocol for volumetric modulated arc therapy using dose volume histogram. Med Phys, 43(2). 23. Pal B, Pal A, Bag S, 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] |
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
|
Sharma S, Sharma D, Subramani V, Gopishankar N, Bhaskar S, Pathy S, et al . Correlation analysis between 2D and 3D patient-specific quality assurance for volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Res 2023; 21 (4) :685-691 URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-5036-en.html
|
