PURPOSE: To investigate using 3D γ analysis for IMRT and VMAT QA. METHODS: We explored and studied 3D γ-analysis by comparing TPS computed and EPID back-projection reconstructed doses in patient's CT images. Two 3D γ quantities, γ(PTV) and γ(10), were proposed and studied for evaluating the QA results, and compared to 2D γ (MapCheck composite: γ(MC)). RESULTS: It was found that when 3%(global)/3 mm criteria was used, all IMRT and 90% of VMAT plans passed QA with a γ pass rate ≥90%. A significant statistical correlation was observed between 3D and 2D γ-analysis results for IMRT QA if γ(10) and γ(MC) are concerned, but no significant relation is found between γ(PTV) and γ(MC). CONCLUSIONS: 3D γ analysis based on EPID dose back-projection may provide a feasible tool for IMRT and VMAT pretreatment plan QA.
PURPOSE: To investigate using 3D γ analysis for IMRT and VMAT QA. METHODS: We explored and studied 3D γ-analysis by comparing TPS computed and EPID back-projection reconstructed doses in patient's CT images. Two 3D γ quantities, γ(PTV) and γ(10), were proposed and studied for evaluating the QA results, and compared to 2D γ (MapCheck composite: γ(MC)). RESULTS: It was found that when 3%(global)/3 mm criteria was used, all IMRT and 90% of VMAT plans passed QA with a γ pass rate ≥90%. A significant statistical correlation was observed between 3D and 2D γ-analysis results for IMRT QA if γ(10) and γ(MC) are concerned, but no significant relation is found between γ(PTV) and γ(MC). CONCLUSIONS: 3D γ analysis based on EPID dose back-projection may provide a feasible tool for IMRT and VMAT pretreatment plan QA.
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
Authors: Kiley B Pulliam; David Followill; Laurence Court; Lei Dong; Michael Gillin; Karl Prado; Stephen F Kry Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 2.102