Literature DB >> 33559038

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

Liting Yu1,2, Tanya Kairn3,4, Jamie V Trapp4, Scott B Crowe3,4.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the behaviour of global and local gamma analyses with isodose levels. Global and local gamma evaluation were performed on patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) data from 100 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) arcs and 100 helical tomotherapy (HT) plans, using an in-house gamma code. Gamma pass rates versus isodose levels were plotted and evaluated. Other than a slightly increased skew towards higher pass rates for the global gamma evaluation, minimal differences were observed between the results of evaluating all VMAT arcs separately and the results of evaluating over VMAT treatment plans by combining arcs from each plan. Generally, the VMAT results showed average pass rates that increase with decreasing isodose level, for both global and local gamma evaluations. The HT results differed systematically from the VMAT results, with the results of performing global and local gamma evaluations agreeing more closely at all isodose levels and with the highest gamma pass rates being achieved at intermediate dose levels, between the 40 and 70% isodose levels. These results demonstrate the complex of relationships between global and local gamma evaluation results that can arise when clinical PSQA data are analysed and exemplify how the local gamma evaluation does not necessarily produce disproportionately reduced gamma pass rates in low dose regions. Performing gamma evaluation with different isodose levels is suggested as a useful method to improve understanding of specific PSQA data and as well as the broader features of gamma evaluation results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Global gamma evaluation; Isodose; Local gamma evaluation

Year:  2021        PMID: 33559038     DOI: 10.1007/s13246-020-00968-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med        ISSN: 2662-4729


  20 in total

1.  Statistical variability and confidence intervals for planar dose QA pass rates.

Authors:  Daniel W Bailey; Benjamin E Nelms; Kristopher Attwood; Lalith Kumaraswamy; Matthew B Podgorsak
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels.

Authors:  Benjamin E Nelms; Maria F Chan; Geneviève Jarry; Matthieu Lemire; John Lowden; Carnell Hampton; Vladimir Feygelman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Characterization of a novel 2D array dosimeter for patient-specific quality assurance with volumetric arc therapy.

Authors:  Sotirios Stathakis; Pamela Myers; Carlos Esquivel; Panayiotis Mavroidis; Nikos Papanikolaou
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  B Fraass; K Doppke; M Hunt; G Kutcher; G Starkschall; R Stern; J Van Dyke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Macromolecule-small molecule interactions: a synthetic polymer with greater affinity than serum albumin for small molecules.

Authors:  I M Klotz; A R Sloniewsky
Journal:  Biochem Biophys Res Commun       Date:  1968-05-10       Impact factor: 3.575

6.  Photon optimizer (PO) vs progressive resolution optimizer (PRO): a conformality- and complexity-based comparison for intensity-modulated arc therapy plans.

Authors:  Diana Binny; Tanya Kairn; Craig M Lancaster; Jamie V Trapp; Scott B Crowe
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 1.482

7.  The ArcCHECK diode array for dosimetric verification of HybridArc.

Authors:  A L Petoukhova; J van Egmond; M G C Eenink; R G J Wiggenraad; J P C van Santvoort
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218.

Authors:  Moyed Miften; Arthur Olch; Dimitris Mihailidis; Jean Moran; Todd Pawlicki; Andrea Molineu; Harold Li; Krishni Wijesooriya; Jie Shi; Ping Xia; Nikos Papanikolaou; Daniel A Low
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA.

Authors:  Heming Zhen; Benjamin E Nelms; Wolfgang A Tome
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  IMRT QA: Selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity.

Authors:  Jennifer M Steers; Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  1 in total

1.  Optimizing the Region for Evaluation of Global Gamma Analysis for Nasopharyngeal Cancer (NPC) Pretreatment IMRT QA by COMPASS: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Wenli Lu; Ying Li; Wei Huang; Haixia Cui; Hanyin Zhang; Xin Yi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 5.738

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.