A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems.

To investigate the variability of the global gamma index (γ) analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems and to assess the impact of measurement with low resolution detector arrays on γ. Five commercial QA systems (PTW 2D-Array, Scandidos Delta4, SunNuclear ArcCHECK, Varian EPID, and Gafchromic EBT2 film) were investigated. The response of γ analysis to deliberately introduced errors in pelvis and head & neck IMRT and RapidArc™ plans was evaluated in each system. A theoretical γ was calculated in each commercial QA system software (PTW Verisoft, Delta4 software, SNC Patient, Varian Portal Dosimetry and IBA OmniPro, respectively), using treatment planning system resolution virtual measurements and compared to an independent calculation. Error-induced plans were measured on a linear accelerator and were evaluated against the error-free dose distribution calculated using Varian Eclipse™ in the relevant phantom CT scan. In all cases, global γ was used with a 20% threshold relative to a point selected in a high dose and low gradient region. The γ based on measurement was compared against the theoretical to evaluate the response of each system. There was statistically good agreement between the predicted γ based on the virtual measurements from each software (concordance correlation coefficient, ρc>0.92) relative to the independent prediction in all cases. For the actual measured data, the agreement with the predicted γ reduces with tightening passing criteria and the variability between the different systems increases. This indicates that the detector array configuration and resolution have greater impact on the experimental calculation of γ due to under-sampling of the dose distribution, blurring effects, noise, or a combination. It is important to understand the response and limitations of the gamma index analysis combined with the equipment in use. For the same pass-rate criteria, different devices and software combinations exhibit varying levels of agreement with the predicted γ analysis.

Hussein M ，Rowshanfarzad P ，Ebert MA ，Nisbet A ，Clark CH ... -  《-》

Comparison of MLC error sensitivity of various commercial devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance.

The purpose of this study was to compare the MLC error sensitivity of various measurement devices for VMAT pre-treatment quality assurance (QA). This study used four QA devices (Scandidos Delta4, PTW 2D-array, iRT systems IQM, and PTW Farmer chamber). Nine retrospective VMAT plans were used and nine MLC error plans were generated for all nine original VMAT plans. The IQM and Farmer chamber were evaluated using the cumulative signal difference between the baseline and error-induced measurements. In addition, to investigate the sensitivity of the Delta4 device and the 2D-array, global gamma analysis (1%/1, 2%/2, and 3%/3 mm), dose difference (1%, 2%, and 3%) were used between the baseline and error-induced measurements. Some deviations of the MLC error sensitivity for the evaluation metrics and MLC error ranges were observed. For the two ionization devices, the sensitivity of the IQM was significantly better than that of the Farmer chamber (P < 0.01) while both devices had good linearly correlation between the cumulative signal difference and the magnitude of MLC errors. The pass rates decreased as the magnitude of the MLC error increased for both Delta4 and 2D-array. However, the small MLC error for small aperture sizes, such as for lung SBRT, could not be detected using the loosest gamma criteria (3%/3 mm). Our results indicate that DD could be more useful than gamma analysis for daily MLC QA, and that a large-area ionization chamber has a greater advantage for detecting systematic MLC error because of the large sensitive volume, while the other devices could not detect this error for some cases with a small range of MLC error.

Saito M ，Sano N ，Shibata Y ，Kuriyama K ，Komiyama T ，Marino K ，Aoki S ，Ashizawa K ，Yoshizawa K ，Onishi H ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

A critical evaluation of the PTW 2D-ARRAY seven29 and OCTAVIUS II phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification.

Hussein M ，Adams EJ ，Jordan TJ ，Clark CH ，Nisbet A ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

Evaluation of the sensitivity of two 3D diode array dosimetry systems to setup error for quality assurance (QA) of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

Li G ，Bai S ，Chen N ，Henderson L ，Wu K ，Xiao J ，Zhang Y ，Jiang Q ，Jiang X ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

Clinical introduction of a linac head-mounted 2D detector array based quality assurance system in head and neck IMRT.

IMRT QA is commonly performed in a phantom geometry but the clinical interpretation of the results in a 2D phantom plane is difficult. The main objective of our work is to move from film measurement based QA to 3D dose reconstruction in a patient CT scan. In principle, this could be achieved using a dose reconstruction method from 2D detector array measurements as available in the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry). The first step in the clinical introduction of this system instead of the currently used film QA procedures is to test the reliability of the dose reconstruction. In this paper we investigated the validation of the method in a homogeneous phantom with the film QA procedure as a reference. We tested whether COMPASS QA results correctly identified treatment plans that did or did not fulfil QA requirements in head and neck (H&N) IMRT. A total number of 24 treatments were selected from an existing database with more than 100 film based H&N IMRT QA results. The QA results were classified as either good, just acceptable or clinically rejected (mean gamma index <0.4, 0.4-0.5 or >0.5, respectively with 3%/3mm criteria). Film QA was repeated and compared to COMPASS QA with a MatriXX detector measurement performed on the same day. Good agreement was found between COMPASS reconstructed dose and film measured dose in a phantom (mean gamma 0.83±0.09, 1SD with 1%/1mm criteria, 0.33±0.04 with 3%/3mm criteria). COMPASS QA results correlated well with film QA, identifying the same patients with less good QA results. Repeated measurements with film and COMPASS showed changes in delivery after a modified MLC calibration, also visible in a standard MLC check in COMPASS. The time required for QA reduced by half by using COMPASS instead of film. Agreement of COMPASS QA results with film based QA supports its clinical introduction for a phantom geometry. A standard MLC calibration check is sensitive to <1mm changes that could be significant in H&N IMRT. These findings offer opportunities to further investigate the method based on a 2D detector array to 3D dose reconstruction in a patient anatomy.

Korevaar EW ，Wauben DJ ，van der Hulst PC ，Langendijk JA ，Van't Veld AA ... -  《-》