Literature DB >> 18404924

Geometric interpretation of the gamma dose distribution comparison technique: interpolation-free calculation.

Tao Ju1, Tim Simpson, Joseph O Deasy, Daniel A Low.   

Abstract

The gamma dose comparison tool has been used by numerous investigators to quantitatively compare multidimensional dose distributions. The gamma tool requires the specification of dose and distance-to-agreement (DTA) criteria for acceptable variations between the dose distributions. The tool then provides a comparison that simultaneously evaluates the dose difference and distance to agreement of the two dose distributions. One of the weaknesses of the tool is that the comparison requires one of the dose distributions to have a relatively high spatial resolution, with points spaced significantly closer than the DTA criterion. The determination of gamma involves an exhaustive search process, so the computation time is significant if an accurate gamma is desired. The reason for the need for high spatial resolution lies with the fact that the gamma tool measures the closest point in one of the dose distributions (the evaluated distribution) with individual points of the other distribution (the reference distribution) when the two distributions are normalized by the dose difference and DTA criteria for the dose and spatial coordinates, respectively. The closest point in the evaluated distribution to a selected reference distribution point is the value of gamma at that reference point. If individual evaluated dose distribution points are compared, the closest point may not accurately reflect the closest value of the evaluated distribution as if it were interpolated on an infinite resolution grid. Therefore, a reinterpretation of the gamma distribution as the closest geometric distance between the two distributions is proposed. This is conducted by subdividing the evaluated distribution into simplexes; line segments, triangles, and tetrahedra for one, two, and three-dimensional (3D) dose distributions. The closest distance between any point and these simplexes can be straightforwardly computed using matrix multiplication and inversion without the need of interpolating the original evaluated distribution. While an exhaustive search is still required, not having to interpolate the evaluated distribution avoids the drastic growth of calculation time incurred by interpolation and makes the gamma tool more practical and more accurate. In our experiment, the geometric method accurately computes gamma distributions between 3D dose distributions on a 200 x 200 x 50 grid within two minutes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18404924     DOI: 10.1118/1.2836952

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


  12 in total

1.  A distance to dose difference tool for estimating the required spatial accuracy of a displacement vector field.

Authors:  Nahla K Saleh-Sayah; Elisabeth Weiss; Francisco J Salguero; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Commissioning a CT-compatible LDR tandem and ovoid applicator using Monte Carlo calculation and 3D dosimetry.

Authors:  Justus Adamson; Joseph Newton; Yun Yang; Beverly Steffey; Jing Cai; John Adamovics; Mark Oldham; Junzo Chino; Oana Craciunescu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-07       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.  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

Review 5.  GPU-based high-performance computing for radiation therapy.

Authors:  Xun Jia; Peter Ziegenhein; Steve B Jiang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  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

7.  Comparison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Pablo Yepes; Antony Adair; David Grosshans; Dragan Mirkovic; Falk Poenisch; Uwe Titt; Qianxia Wang; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Reliable detection of fluence anomalies in EPID-based IMRT pretreatment quality assurance using pixel intensity deviations.

Authors:  J J Gordon; J K Gardner; S Wang; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.506

9.  Reference dosimetry using radiochromic film.

Authors:  Frédéric Girard; Hugo Bouchard; Frédéric Lacroix
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Breaking bad IMRT QA practice.

Authors:  Strahinja Stojadinovic; Luo Ouyang; Xuejun Gu; Arnold Pompoš; Qinan Bao; Timothy D Solberg
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.