Gamma Index Analysis as a Patient-Specific Quality Assurance Tool for High-Precision Radiotherapy: A Clinical Perspective of Single Institute Experience

Purpose

Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) by gamma (γ) analysis is an important component of high-precision radiotherapy. It is important to standardize institute-specific protocol. In this study, we describe our institutional experience of patient-specific QA for high-precision radiotherapy from a clinical perspective.

Methods

The planning data of 56 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were included. γ index analysis was done using Octavius 4D IMRT QA phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) using 3 mm/3% criteria. Local, global, and volumetric gammas were calculated and compared. The relationship of γ index in the transverse, coronal, and sagittal direction and anatomical region of treatment was explored.

Results

Global three-dimensional (3D) γ indices in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse axes were 96.73 ± 2.35, 95.66 ± 3.01, and 93.36 ± 4.87 (p < 0.05). The average local two-dimensional (2D) γ index was 78.23 ± 5.44 and the global γ index was 92.41 ± 2.41 (p < 0.005). The average local 3D γ index was 84.99 ± 4.24 and the global 3D γ index was 95.25 ± 1.72 (p < 0.005, paired t-test). The average local volumetric γ index was 84.29 ± 4.73 and the global volumetric γ index was 95.96 ± 2.08 (p < 0.005). 3D global gamma index was significantly different in different anatomical regions (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our study shows that γ index analysis is a useful parameter for routine clinical IMRT QA. The choice of type of γ index depends on the context of use and degree of stringency in measurement. Average 2D and 3D global γ were different in anatomical regions. The average 3D γ index was significantly different in axes. No difference was observed with techniques of IMRT/VMAT. Localization of failed points in CT anatomy can be advantageous for clinical decision-making.

A comparison of volumetric modulated arc therapy and sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma

This article is aimed to compare the dosimetric differences between volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for Stage I-II nasal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (NNKTL). Ten patients with Stage I-II NNKTL treated with IMRT were replanned with VMAT (2 arcs). The prescribed dose of the planning target volume (PTV) was 50Gy in 25 fractions. The VMAT plans with the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (Version 8.6.15) were based on an Eclipse treatment planning system; the monitor units (MUs) and treatment time (T) were scored to measure the expected treatment efficiency. All the 10 patients under the study were subject to comparisons regarding the quality of target coverage, the efficiency of delivery, and the exposure of normal adjacent organs at risk (OARs). The study shows that VMAT was associated with a better conformal index (CI) and homogeneity index (HI) (both p < 0.05) but slightly higher dose to OARs than IMRT. The MUs with VMAT (650.80 ± 24.59) were fewer than with IMRT (1300.10 ± 57.12) (relative reduction of 49.94%, p = 0.00) when using 2-Gy dose fractions. The treatment time with VMAT (3.20 ± 0.02 minutes) was shorter than with IMRT (7.38 ± 0.18 minutes) (relative reduction of 56.64%, p = 0.00). We found that VMAT and IMRT both provide satisfactory target dosimetric coverage and OARs sparing clinically. Likely to deliver a bit higher dose to OARs, VMAT in comparison with IMRT, is still a better choice for treatment of patients with Stage I-II NNKTL, thanks to better dose distribution, fewer MUs, and shorter delivery time.

Measurement comparison and Monte Carlo analysis for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery verification using the ArcCHECK dosimetry system

The objective of this study is to validate the capabilities of a cylindrical diode array system for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment quality assurance (QA). The VMAT plans were generated by the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) with the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation. An in‐house Monte Carlo (MC) code was utilized as a validation tool for the TPS calculations and the ArcCHECK measurements. The megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) of the ArcCHECK system was adopted for the geometry reconstruction in the TPS and for MC simulations. A 10×10 cm2 open field validation was performed for both the 6 and 10 MV photon beams to validate the absolute dose calibration of the ArcCHECK system and also the TPS dose calculations for this system. The impact of the angular dependency on noncoplanar deliveries was investigated with a series of 10×10 cm2 fields delivered with couch rotation 0° to 40°. The sensitivity of detecting the translational (1 to 10 mm) and the rotational (1° to 3°) misalignments was tested with a breast VMAT case. Ten VMAT plans (six prostate, H&N, pelvis, liver, and breast) were investigated to evaluate the agreement of the target dose and the peripheral dose among ArcCHECK measurements, and TPS and MC dose calculations. A customized acrylic plug holding an ion chamber was used to measure the dose at the center of the ArcCHECK phantom. Both the entrance and the exit doses measured by the ArcCHECK system with and without the plug agreed with the MC simulation to 1.0%. The TPS dose calculation with a 2.5 mm grid overestimated the exit dose by up to 7.2% when the plug was removed. The agreement between the MC and TPS calculations for the ArcCHECK without the plug improved significantly when a 1 mm dose calculation grid was used in the TPS. The noncoplanar delivery test demonstrated that the angular dependency has limited impact on the gamma passing rate (<1.2% drop) for the 2%–3% dose and 2 mm–3 mm DTA criteria. A 1° rotational misalignment introduces 11.3% (3%/3 mm) to 21.3% (1%/1 mm) and 0.2% (3%/3 mm) to 0.8% (1%/1 mm) Gamma passing rate drop for ArcCHECK system and MatriXX system, respectively. Both systems have comparable sensitivity to the AP misalignments. However, a 2 mm RL misalignment introduces gamma passing rate drop ranging from 0.9% (3%/3 mm) to 4.0% (1%/1 mm) and 5.0% (3%/3 mm) to 12.0% (1%/1 mm) for ArcCHECK and MatriXX measurements, respectively. For VMAT plan QA, the gamma analysis passing rates ranged from 96.1% (H&N case) to 99.9% (prostate case), when using the 3%/3 mm DTA criteria for the peripheral dose validation between the TPS and ArcCHCEK measurements. The peripheral dose validation between the MC simulation and ArcCHECK measurements showed at least 97.9% gamma passing rates. The central dose validation also showed an agreement within 2.2% between TPS/MC calculations and ArcCHECK measurements. The worst discrepancy was found in the H&N case, which is the most complex VMAT case. The ArcCHECK system is suitable for VMAT QA evaluation based on the sensitivity to detecting misalignments, the clinical impact of the angular dependency, and the correlation between the dose agreements in the peripheral region and the central region. This work also demonstrated the importance of carrying out a thorough validation of both the TPS and the dosimetry system prior to utilizing it for QA, and the value of having an independent dose calculation tool, such as the MC method, in clinical practice.

PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Radiation therapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma using simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) protocol: a comparison planning study between intensity modulated arc radiotherapy vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy

The aim of this paper is to compare the dosimetric difference between intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) and conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for radiotherapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) using simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) protocol. Ten patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma underwent SIB protocol were retrospectively studied. The plan target volume (PTV) of NPC contained nasopharynx gross target volume and the positive neck lymph nodes, PTV1 contained the high-risk sites of microscopic extension and the whole nasopharynx and PTV2 contained the low-risk sites. The prescription dose of PTV was 66 Gy/30 fractions, and for PTV1 60 Gy/30 fractions and for PTV2 54 Gy/30 fractions. IMAT (two 358° arcs) and IMRT (7 fields) plans were designed for each patients using SIB strategies. The monitor unit (MU), treatment time (T) and dosimetric difference between IMRT and IMAT were compared. IMAT can achieve better conformal index (CI) than IMRT (P < 0.05) for all PTVs, while no significant difference were found in homogeneity index (HI) (P > 0.05). There's no significant difference found in radiation dose of brain stem, lenses and parotids, while the maximum dose of spinal cord of IMAT was higher than IMRT (P < 0.05). The monitor unit of IMRT (1308 ± 213) was more than IMAT (606 ± 96) (P < 0.05), while the treatment time of IMRT (540 ± 160S) was more than IMAT (160 ± 10S). This study shows that IMAT using SIB strategies for NPC radiotherapy can achieve similar target coverage with better conformity with less MU and delivery time comparing to IMRT.