Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 303–309 | Cite as

Three-dimensional gamma analysis of dose distributions in individual structures for IMRT dose verification

  • Yuuki Tomiyama
  • Fujio Araki
  • Takeshi Oono
  • Kazunari Hioki
Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Our purpose in this study was to implement three-dimensional (3D) gamma analysis for structures of interest such as the planning target volume (PTV) or clinical target volume (CTV), and organs at risk (OARs) for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose verification. IMRT dose distributions for prostate and head and neck (HN) cancer patients were calculated with an analytical anisotropic algorithm in an Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system (TPS) and by Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. The MC dose distributions were calculated with EGSnrc/BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc user codes under conditions identical to those for the TPS. The prescribed doses were 76 Gy/38 fractions with five-field IMRT for the prostate and 33 Gy/17 fractions with seven-field IMRT for the HN. TPS dose distributions were verified by the gamma passing rates for the whole calculated volume, PTV or CTV, and OARs by use of 3D gamma analysis with reference to MC dose distributions. The acceptance criteria for the 3D gamma analysis were 3/3 and 2 %/2 mm for a dose difference and a distance to agreement. The gamma passing rates in PTV and OARs for the prostate IMRT plan were close to 100 %. For the HN IMRT plan, the passing rates of 2 %/2 mm in CTV and OARs were substantially lower because inhomogeneous tissues such as bone and air in the HN are included in the calculation area. 3D gamma analysis for individual structures is useful for IMRT dose verification.

Keywords

Gamma index Structure IMRT Monte Carlo calculation MATLAB software 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sterpin E, Tomsej M, Smedt BD, Reynaert N, et al. Monte Carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator. Med Phys. 2007;34:1665–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goetzfriend T, Rickhey M, Treuwein M, Koelbl O, et al. Monte Carlo simulations to replace film dosimetry in IMRT verification. Z Med Phys. 2011;21:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers DWO, Faddegon BA, Ding GX, Ma CM, et al. BEAM: a Monte Carlo code to simulate radiotherapy treatment units. Med Phys. 1995;22:503–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim JO, Siebers JV, Keall PJ, Arnfield MR, et al. A Monte Carlo study of radiation transport through multileaf collimators. Med Phys. 2001;28:2497–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys. 1998;25:656–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Childress NL, Rosen II. The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;56:1464–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blanpain B, Mercier D. The delta envelope: a technique for dose distribution comparison. Med Phys. 2009;36:797–808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moran JM, Radawski J, Fraass BA. A dose gradient analysis tool for IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2005;6:62–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Depuydt T, Van Esch A, Huyskens DP. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2002;62:309–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Low DA, Dempsey JF. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys. 2003;30:2455–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stock M, Kroupa B, Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the gamma index and the gamma index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:399–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bakai A, Alber M, Nusslin F. A revision of the gamma-evaluation concept for the comparison of dose distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:3543–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spezi E, Lewis DG. Gamma histograms for radiotherapy plan evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79:224–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wendling M, Zijp LJ, McDermott LN, Smit EJ, et al. A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D. Med Phys. 2007;34:1647–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ju T, Simpson T, Deasy JO, Low DA. Geometric interpretation of the gamma dose distribution comparison technique: interpolation-free calculation. Med Phys. 2008;35:879–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhen H, Nelms BE, Tomé WA. Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. Med Phys. 2011;38:5477–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé WA. Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. Med Phys. 2011;38:1037–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carrasco P, Jornet N, Latorre A, Eudaldo T, et al. 3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. Med Phys. 2012;39:5040–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stasi M, Bresciani S, Miranti A, Maggio A, et al. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 2012;39:7626–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spezi E, Lewis DG, Smith CW. A DICOM-RT-based toolbox for the evaluation and verification of radiotherapy plans. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:4223–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogers DWO, Walters B, Kawrakow I. BEAMnrc users manual. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, NRCC Report PIRS-0509(A). 2011.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walters B, Kawrakow I, Rogers DWO. DOSXYZnrc users manual. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, NRCC Report PIRS-794revB. 2011.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, Shragge PC. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993;26:261–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuuki Tomiyama
    • 1
  • Fujio Araki
    • 1
  • Takeshi Oono
    • 1
  • Kazunari Hioki
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Health SciencesKumamoto UniversityKumamotoJapan

Personalised recommendations