Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A technique for quantifying the sensitivity of dosimetric tool gamma with 2D detector array in pretreatment IMRT plans by segment deletion method

  • Radiotherapy
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Motivation of this study is to check the sensitivity of dosimetric tool gamma with 2D detector array combination when unexpected errors occur while transferring intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment plans from planning system to treatment unit.

Methods

This study consists of 17 head and neck cancer patient’s treatment plans. Nine types of verification plans are created for all 17 clinically approved treatment plans by consecutively deleting different segments (up to eight) one by one from each field of the plan. Decrement factor (χ) is introduced in our study which illustrated the degree of decay of gamma passing rate when intentional errors are introduced. We analyzed the data by two different methods—one without selecting the region of interest (ROI) in dose distributions and the other by selecting the region of interest.

Results

By linear regression, the absolute value of slopes is 0.025, 0.024 and 0.015 without ROI and 0.030, 0.027 and 0.015 with ROI for 2%/2 mm, 3%/3 mm and 5%/5 mm criteria, respectively. The higher absolute value of the fitted slope indicates the higher sensitivity of this method to identify erroneous plan in treatment unit. The threshold value for 2%/2 mm equivalent to 95% passing criteria in 3%/3 mm used in clinical practice is obtained as 83.44%.

Conclusions

The 2D detector array with dosimetric tool gamma is less sensitive in detecting errors when unprecedented errors of segment deletion occur within the treatment plans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palta JR, Liu C, Li JG (2008) Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:S108–S112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alashrah S, Kandaiya S, Yong SY, Cheng SK (2010) Characterization of a 2D ionization chamber array for IMRT plan verification. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 619:181–185

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goetzfriend T, Rickhey M, Treuwein M, Koelbl O, Bogner L (2011) Monte Carlo simulations to replace film dosimetry in IMRT verification. Z Med Phys 21:19–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Low DA (2002) Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Semin Radiat Oncol 12:219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schreiner LJ (2011) On the quality assurance and verification of modern radiation therapy treatment. J Med Phys 36:189–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Low DA, Harms WB, Mutic S, Purdy JA (1998) A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. Med Phys 25(5):656–661

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Depuydt T, Van Esch A, Huyskens DP (2002) A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol 62:309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Low DA, Dempsey JF (2003) Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys 30(9):2455–2464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chung JB, Kim JS, Ha SW, Ye S-J (2011) Statistical analysis of IMRT dosimetry quality assurance measurements for local delivery guideline. Radiat Oncol 27:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Low DA, Mutic S, Dempsey JF, Gerber RL, Bosch WR, Perez CA, Purdy JA (1998) Quantitative dosimetric verification of an IMRT planning and delivery system. Radiother Oncol 49(3):305–316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Park DH, Shin D, Park SY, Park D, Kim TH, Shin KH, Yoon M, Kim DY, Cho KH (2007) Optimized matching of film dosimetry with calculated doses for IMRT quality assurance. Phys Med 23:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schreibmann E, Dhabaan A, Elder E, Fox T (2009) Patient-specific quality assurance method for VMAT treatment delivery. Med Phys 36(10):4530–4535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bailey DW, Kumaraswamy L, Bakhtiari M, Malhotra HK, Podgorsak MB (2012) EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys 13(4):82–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Won HS, Chung JB, Eom KY, Hwang DG, Kang SW, Suh TS (2018) Feasibility study of multi-purpose quality assurance phantom for pretreatment verification of volumetric modulated arc therapy. Int J Radiat Res 16:279–287

    Google Scholar 

  15. Buonamici FB, Compagnucci A, Marrazzo L, Russo S, Bucciolini M (2007) An intercomparison between film dosimetry and diode matrix for IMRT quality assurance. Med Phys 34(4):1372–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kakade NR, Kumar R, Sharma SD, Mittal V, Datta D (2019) Pretreatment dose verification in volumetric modulated arc therapy using liquid ionization chamber. J Med Phys 44(1):9–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bramoulle C, Cortina S, Romain B, Husson F (2017) EPID-based pretreatment quality assurance: dosimetric evaluation of application software. Phys Med 44:28–45

    Google Scholar 

  18. Camilleri J, Mazurier J, Franck D, Dudouet P, Latorzeff I, Franceries X (2016) 2D EPID dose calibration for pretreatment quality control of conformal and IMRT fields: a simple and fast convolution approach. Phys Med 32:133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chandraraj V, Stathakis S, Manickam R, Esquivel C, Supe SS, Papanikolaou N (2011) Comparison of four commercial devices for Rapid Arc and sliding window IMRT QA. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12(2):338–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hayashi N, Malmin RL, Watanabe Y (2014) Dosimetric verification for intensity-modulated arc therapy plans by use of 2D diode array, radiochromic film and radiosensitive polymer gel. J Radiat Res 55:541–552

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Templeton AK, Chu JC, Turian JV (2015) The sensitivity of ArcCHECK-based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helicaltomotherapy radiation delivery. J Appl Clin Med Phys 16(1):32–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Leal A, Sánchez-Doblado F, Arráns R, Roselló J, Pavón EC, Lagares JI (2003) Routine IMRT verification by means of an automated Monte Carlo simulation system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56(1):58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kung JH, Chen GT, Kuchnir FK (2000) A monitor unit verification calculation in intensity modulated radiotherapy as a dosimetry quality assurance. Med Phys 27(10):2226–2230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Childress NL, Rosen II (2003) The design and testing of novel clinical parameters for dose comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56(5):1464–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shiba E, Saito A, Furumi M, Murakami Y, Ohguri T, Tsuneda M, Yahara K, Nishio T, Korogi Y, Nagata Y (2019) Predictive gamma passing rate by dose uncertainty potential accumulation model. Med Phys 46(2):999–1005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bogdanich W (2010) Radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html. Accessed 24 Jan 2010

  27. Winiecki J, Morgas T, Majewska K, Drzewiecka B (2009) The gamma evaluation method as a routine QA procedure of IMRT. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 14:162–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. OmniPro user Manual, IBA, Version 1.7.0021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Advanced Sciences, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, 632014, India

    M. P. Arun Krishnan, A. T. Bhagyalakshmi, V. Ramasubramanian, Jianping Hu & M. Ummal Momeen

  2. MVR Cancer Centre and Research Institute, Kozhikode, 673601, India

    M. P. Arun Krishnan, Niyas Puzakkal, C. P. Ranjith, R. Vysakh & M. P. Irfad

  3. Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Kochi, 682041, India

    Raghavendra Holla

Authors
  1. M. P. Arun Krishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. T. Bhagyalakshmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raghavendra Holla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Niyas Puzakkal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. P. Ranjith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Vysakh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. P. Irfad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. V. Ramasubramanian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jianping Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Ummal Momeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianping Hu or M. Ummal Momeen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krishnan, M.P.A., Bhagyalakshmi, A.T., Holla, R. et al. A technique for quantifying the sensitivity of dosimetric tool gamma with 2D detector array in pretreatment IMRT plans by segment deletion method. Radiol med 126, 453–459 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01259-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01259-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation