Literature DB >> 17555246

A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D.

Markus Wendling1, Lambert J Zijp, Leah N McDermott, Ewoud J Smit, Jan-Jakob Sonke, Ben J Mijnheer, Marcel van Herk.   

Abstract

The gamma-evaluation method is a tool by which dose distributions can be compared in a quantitative manner combining dose-difference and distance-to-agreement criteria. Since its introduction, the gamma evaluation has been used in many studies and is on the verge of becoming the preferred dose distribution comparison method, particularly for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) verification. One major disadvantage, however, is its long computation time, which especially applies to the comparison of three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions. We present a fast algorithm for a full 3D gamma evaluation at high resolution. Both the reference and evaluated dose distributions are first resampled on the same grid. For each point of the reference dose distribution, the algorithm searches for the best point of agreement according to the gamma method in the evaluated dose distribution, which can be done at a subvoxel resolution. Speed, computer memory efficiency, and high spatial resolution are achieved by searching around each reference point with increasing distance in a sphere, which has a radius of a chosen maximum search distance and is interpolated "on-the-fly" at a chosen sample step size. The smaller the sample step size and the larger the differences between the dose distributions, the longer the gamma evaluation takes. With decreasing sample step size, statistical measures of the 3D gamma distribution converge. Two clinical examples were investigated using 3% of the prescribed dose as dose-difference and 0.3 cm as distance-to-agreement criteria. For 0.2 cm grid spacing, the change in gamma indices was negligible below a sample step size of 0.02 cm. Comparing the full 3D gamma evaluation and slice-by-slice 2D gamma evaluations ("2.5D") for these clinical examples, the gamma indices improved by searching in full 3D space, with the average gamma index decreasing by at least 8%.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17555246     DOI: 10.1118/1.2721657

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  36 in total

1.  Comparison of global and local gamma evaluation results using isodose levels.

Authors:  Liting Yu; Tanya Kairn; Jamie V Trapp; Scott B Crowe
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2021-02-08

2.  Comparison of 2D and 3D gamma analyses.

Authors:  Kiley B Pulliam; Jessie Y Huang; Rebecca M Howell; David Followill; Ryan Bosca; Jennifer O'Daniel; Stephen F Kry
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Three-dimensional gamma analysis of dose distributions in individual structures for IMRT dose verification.

Authors:  Yuuki Tomiyama; Fujio Araki; Takeshi Oono; Kazunari Hioki
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-05-06

4.  Validation of a quick three-dimensional dose verification system for pre-treatment IMRT QA.

Authors:  Yuji Nakaguchi; Fujio Araki; Takeshi Ono; Yuki Tomiyama; Masato Maruyama; Nozomu Nagasue; Yoshinobu Shimohigashi; Yudai Kai
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-09-27

5.  GPU-based fast gamma index calculation.

Authors:  Xuejun Gu; Xun Jia; Steve B Jiang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Dose calculation with respiration-averaged CT processed from cine CT without a respiratory surrogate.

Authors:  Adam C Riegel; Moiz Ahmad; Xiaojun Sun; Tinsu Pan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Numerical solutions of the γ-index in two and three dimensions.

Authors:  Benjamin M Clasie; Gregory C Sharp; Joao Seco; Jacob B Flanz; Hanne M Kooy
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  3D reconstruction of scintillation light emission from proton pencil beams using limited viewing angles-a simulation study.

Authors:  CheukKai Hui; Daniel Robertson; Sam Beddar
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Automation of routine elements for spot-scanning proton patient-specific quality assurance.

Authors:  Danairis Hernandez Morales; Jie Shan; Wei Liu; Kurt E Augustine; Martin Bues; Michael J Davis; Mirek Fatyga; Jedediah E Johnson; Daniel W Mundy; Jiajian Shen; James E Younkin; Joshua B Stoker
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Monte Carlo dose verification of prostate patients treated with simultaneous integrated boost intensity modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Nesrin Dogan; Ivaylo Mihaylov; Yan Wu; Paul J Keall; Jeffrey V Siebers; Michael P Hagan
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.