Literature DB >> 22149855

Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: Investigation of parameters with a surface-based distance method.

Heng Li1, Lei Dong, Lifei Zhang, James N Yang, Michael T Gillin, X Ronald Zhu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to clarify the interactions between the parameters used in the γ index with the surface-based distance method, which itself can be viewed as a generalized version of the γ index. The examined parameters included the distance to agreement (DTA)/dose difference (DD) criteria, the percentage used as a passing criterion, and the passing percentage for given DTA/DD criteria. The specific aims of our work were (1) to understand the relationships between the parameters used in the γ index, (2) to determine the detection limit, or the minimum detectable error, of the γ index with a given set of parameters, and (3) to establish a procedure to determine parameters that are consistent with the capacity of an IMRT QA system.
METHODS: The surface-based distance technique with dose gradient factor was derived, and then the relationship between surface-based distance and γ index was established. The dose gradient factor for plans and measurements of 10 IMRT patients, 10 spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) patients, and 3 Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck phantom were calculated and evaluated. The detection limits of the surface-based distance and γ index methods were examined by introducing known shifts to the 10 IMRT plans.
RESULTS: The means of the dose gradient factors were 0.434 mm/% and 0.956 mm/% for the SRS and IMRT plans, respectively. Key quantities (including the mean and 90th and 99th percentiles of the distance distribution) of the surface-based distance distribution between two dose distributions were linearly proportional to the actual shifts. However, the passing percentage of the γ index for a given set of DTA/DD criteria was not associated with the actual shift. For IMRT, using the standard quality assurance criteria of 3 mm/3% DTA/DD and a 90% passing rate, we found that the detection limit of the γ index in terms of global shift was 4.07 mm/4.07 % without noise.
CONCLUSIONS: Surface-based distance is a direct measure of the difference between two dose distributions and can be used to evaluate or determine parameters for use in calculating the γ index. The dose gradient factor represents the weighting between spatial and dose shift and should be determined before DTA/DD criteria are set. The authors also present a procedure to determine γ index parameters from measurements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22149855      PMCID: PMC3298565          DOI: 10.1118/1.3659707

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


  20 in total

1.  A revision of the gamma-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions.

Authors:  Annemarie Bakai; Markus Alber; Fridtjof Nüsslin
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2003-11-07       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison.

Authors:  Nathan L Childress; Isaac I Rosen
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 7.038

3.  Investigating the Feasibility of 3D Dosimetry in the RPC IMRT H&N Phantom.

Authors:  Hs Sakhalkar; D Sterling; J Adamovics; G Ibbott; M Oldham
Journal:  J Phys Conf Ser       Date:  2009

4.  A gamma dose distribution evaluation technique using the k-d tree for nearest neighbor searching.

Authors:  Jiankui Yuan; Weimin Chen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A CT-based software tool for evaluating compensator quality in passively scattered proton therapy.

Authors:  Heng Li; Lifei Zhang; Lei Dong; Narayan Sahoo; Michael T Gillin; X Ronald Zhu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Interpretation and evaluation of the gamma index and the gamma index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans.

Authors:  Markus Stock; Bernhard Kroupa; Dietmar Georg
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-02-07       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  An inter-centre quality assurance network for IMRT verification: results of the ESTRO QUASIMODO project.

Authors:  Sofie Gillis; Carlos De Wagter; Joerg Bohsung; Bruce Perrin; Peter Williams; Ben J Mijnheer
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.280

8.  Performance of a direct-detection active matrix flat panel dosimeter (AMFPD) for IMRT measurements.

Authors:  Yu Chen; Jean M Moran; Donald A Roberts; Youcef El-Mohri; Larry E Antonuk; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy using Elekta Synergy.

Authors:  Akihiro Haga; Keiichi Nakagawa; Kenshiro Shiraishi; Saori Itoh; Atsuro Terahara; Hideomi Yamashita; Kuni Ohtomo; Shigeki Saegusa; Toshikazu Imae; Kiyoshi Yoda; Roberto Pellegrini
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.089

10.  A dose gradient analysis tool for IMRT QA.

Authors:  Jean M Moran; Jeffrey Radawski; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2005-05-19       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  12 in total

1.  A mathematical approach to beam matching.

Authors:  B Sarkar; A Manikandan; M Nandy; M S Gossman; C S Sureka; A Ray; N Sujatha
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Correcting lateral response artifacts from flatbed scanners for radiochromic film dosimetry.

Authors:  David Lewis; Maria F Chan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Technical Note: Deriving ventilation imaging from 4DCT by deep convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Yuncheng Zhong; Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy; Liyuan Chen; Nick Myziuk; Richard Castillo; Edward Castillo; Thomas Guerrero; Steve Jiang; Jing Wang
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-03-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Novel On-line PET Imaging for Intra-Beam Range Verification and Delivery Optimization: A Simulation Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Yuncheng Zhong; Weiguo Lu; Mingli Chen; Zhenyu Xiong; Xinyi Cheng; Kun Hu; Yiping Shao
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2019-10-30

5.  Derivative based sensitivity analysis of gamma index.

Authors:  Biplab Sarkar; Anirudh Pradhan; T Ganesh
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec

6.  A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D-ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification.

Authors:  Mohammad Hussein; Elizabeth J Adams; Thomas J Jordan; Catharine H Clark; Andrew Nisbet
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-11-04       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  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

8.  Verification of Acuros XB dose algorithm using 3D printed low-density phantoms for clinical photon beams.

Authors:  Rodolfo Zavan; Philip McGeachy; Joseph Madamesila; Jose-Eduardo Villarreal-Barajas; Rao Khan
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Single-fraction spine SBRT end-to-end testing on TomoTherapy, Vero, TrueBeam, and CyberKnife treatment platforms using a novel anthropomorphic phantom.

Authors:  John J Gallo; Isaac Kaufman; Rachel Powell; Shalini Pandya; Archana Somnay; Todd Bossenberger; Ezequiel Ramirez; Robert Reynolds; Timothy Solberg; Jay Burmeister
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT.

Authors:  Jung-In Kim; So-Yeon Park; Hak Jae Kim; Jin Ho Kim; Sung-Joon Ye; Jong Min Park
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 3.481

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.