Evaluation of the impact of parameters on the gamma index for breast cancer treatments

Authors

  • C. Querebalú Garcia Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
  • E. Carrasco Solis Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas
  • José Vidal Valladolid Salazar National University of Engineering
  • J. Centeno Ramos Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31349/RevMexFis.67.061101

Keywords:

Gamma index; VMAT; lower dose threshold; analysis criteria; patient specific quality control

Abstract

Volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy treatments (VMAT) can achieve highly conformed dose distributions, however, due to the complexity of the technique, there may have differences between the planned and administered dose distributions, generated by the precision in the dose calculation of the treatment planning system (TPS) or by the errors associated with it. One way to quantify the difference between both dose distributions is by using the gamma index; however, there is no accord regarding the parameters that should be used in its analysis. On the other hand, this gamma index may depend on the pathology and the area to be treated. For this reason, the present work aims to evaluate different parameters of the analysis of the gamma index for breast cancer treatments, these are local and global normalization, the analysis criteria (1%/1 mm, 2%/2 mm, 3%/2 mm, 2%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm and 5%/3 mm) and the low dose threshold (LDT) of 5% and 10%. For this, 30 treatment plans performed with VMAT technique in a 6 MV Infinity linear accelerator (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) were analyzed, calculated with the TPS Monaco V.5.11.03 (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and measured with the Octavius 4D system (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). The results of the analysis of the global gamma index were of a gamma passing rate (%GP) greater than 95% for analysis criteria of 3%/3 mm and 5%/3 mm, however, for these same parameters in the local gamma index analysis the results are 85.8% and 91.1% respectively. In addition, from the LDT evaluation, it is observed that there is a mean increase of %GP for the local gamma index analysis and a mean decrease of %GP for the global gamma index analysis, for the LDT from 5% to 10%. On the other hand, the standard deviation is lower in the global gamma index analysis than in the local one, and it decreases when the analysis criteria are less strict. It is concluded that there is not a great difference in choosing the LDT of 5% or 10%. When the gamma analysis criteria are less strict, the %GP increases both for the analysis of the local and global gamma index, taking this into account, each parameter should be used carefully according to the treatment plan to be analyzed, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of each parameter.

References

K. Otto, Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 35 (2008) 310. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738.

J. Min Park, Jung-in Kim, and So-Yeon Park, Do Hoon Oh and Sang-Tae Kim. Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric arc therapy plans. Radiation Oncology 13 (2018) 175, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2818738.

D. Rajasekaran et al., A study on the correlation between plan complexity and gamma index analysis in patient specific quality

assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother 20 (2015) 57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2014.08.006.

D. A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 25 (1998) 656, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598248.

M. Hussein, C. H. Clark, and A. Nisbet, Challenges in calculation of the gamma index in radiotherapy - Towards good practice. Med Phys 36 (2017) 1-11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.03.001.

F. Astrand, IMRT Q. A.Dosmietry, Thesys of Master University of Gothenburg, (2009).

L. Masi, R. Doro, V. Favuzza, S. Cipressi and L. Livi, Impact of plan parameters on the dosimetric accuracy of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Med Phys 40 (2013) 071718, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4810969.

S. Stathakis, P. Myers, C. Esquivel, P. Mavroidis, N. Papanikolaou, Characterization of a novel 2D array dosimeter for patient-specific quality assurance with volumetric arc therapy. Med Phys 40 (2013) 071731, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4812415.

C. K. McGarry, B. F. O’Connell, M. W. Grattan, C. E. Agnew, D. M. Irvine, and A. R. Hounsell, Octavius 4D characterization for flattened and flattening filter free rotational deliveries. Med. Phys. 40 (2013) 091707, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4817482.

J. H. Song et al., Gamma analysis dependence on specified low-dose thresholds for VMAT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys 16 (2015) 263, https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5696.

G. Heilemann, B. Poppe, and W. Laub, On the sensitivity of common gamma index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys. 40 (2013) 031702, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4789580.

A. Fredh, J. B. Scherman, L. S. Fog, and P. Munck, Af Rosenschold Q.A. Patient, Systems for rotational radiation therapy: a comparative experimental study with intentional errors. Med. Phys. 40 (2013) 031716 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4788645.

M. Hussein, P. Rowshanfarzad, M. A. Ebert, A. Nisbet, and C. H. Clark, A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems. Radiother Oncol. 109 (2013) 370-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.048.

L. Yu et al., Analysis of dose comparison techniques for patient-specific quality assurance in radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 20 (2019) 189-198. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12726.

M. Stasi, S. Bresciani, A. Miranti, A. Maggio, and V. Sapino, Pretreatment patient-specic IMRT quality assurance: A correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 39 (2012) b7626. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4767763.

Downloads

Published

2021-11-01