IMRT QA: Selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity.

PURPOSE The gamma comparison is widely used to evaluate the agreement between measurements and treatment planning system calculations in patient-specific intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA). However, recent publications have raised concerns about the lack of sensitivity when employing commonly used gamma criteria. Understanding the actual sensitivity of a wide range of different gamma criteria may allow the definition of more meaningful gamma criteria and tolerance limits in IMRT QA. We present a method that allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors which can be applied to any unique combination of device, delivery technique, and software utilized in a specific clinic. METHODS A total of 21 DMLC IMRT QA measurements (ArcCHECK®, Sun Nuclear) were compared to QA plan calculations with induced errors. Three scenarios were studied: MU errors, multi-leaf collimator (MLC) errors, and the sensitivity of the gamma comparison to changes in penumbra width. Gamma comparisons were performed between measurements and error-induced calculations using a wide range of gamma criteria, resulting in a total of over 20 000 gamma comparisons. Gamma passing rates for each error class and case were graphed against error magnitude to create error curves in order to represent the range of missed errors in routine IMRT QA using 36 different gamma criteria. RESULTS This study demonstrates that systematic errors and case-specific errors can be detected by the error curve analysis. Depending on the location of the error curve peak (e.g., not centered about zero), 3%/3 mm threshold = 10% at 90% pixels passing may miss errors as large as 15% MU errors and ±1 cm random MLC errors for some cases. As the dose threshold parameter was increased for a given %Diff/distance-to-agreement (DTA) setting, error sensitivity was increased by up to a factor of two for select cases. This increased sensitivity with increasing dose threshold was consistent across all studied combinations of %Diff/DTA. Criteria such as 2%/3 mm and 3%/2 mm with a 50% threshold at 90% pixels passing are shown to be more appropriately sensitive without being overly strict. However, a broadening of the penumbra by as much as 5 mm in the beam configuration was difficult to detect with commonly used criteria, as well as with the previously mentioned criteria utilizing a threshold of 50%. CONCLUSIONS We have introduced the error curve method, an analysis technique which allows the quantitative determination of gamma criteria sensitivity to induced errors. The application of the error curve method using DMLC IMRT plans measured on the ArcCHECK® device demonstrated that large errors can potentially be missed in IMRT QA with commonly used gamma criteria (e.g., 3%/3 mm, threshold = 10%, 90% pixels passing). Additionally, increasing the dose threshold value can offer dramatic increases in error sensitivity. This approach may allow the selection of more meaningful gamma criteria for IMRT QA and is straightforward to apply to other combinations of devices and treatment techniques.

[1]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.

[2]  J. Dempsey,et al.  Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. , 2003, Medical physics.

[3]  Cedric X. Yu,et al.  Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee. , 2003, Medical physics.

[4]  Benjamin E. Nelms,et al.  A survey on planar IMRT QA analysis , 2007, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[5]  Stefan Both,et al.  A study to establish reasonable action limits for patient‐specific quality assurance in intensity‐modulated radiation therapy , 2007, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[6]  R. Howell,et al.  Establishing action levels for EPID‐based QA for IMRT , 2008, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[7]  Parminder S Basran,et al.  An analysis of tolerance levels in IMRT quality assurance procedures. , 2008, Medical physics.

[8]  Todd Pawlicki,et al.  Moving from IMRT QA measurements toward independent computer calculations using control charts. , 2008, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[9]  Todd Pawlicki,et al.  Process control analysis of IMRT QA: implications for clinical trials , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  J. Mechalakos,et al.  IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. , 2009, Medical physics.

[11]  David A Jaffray,et al.  Novel dosimetric phantom for quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy. , 2009, Medical physics.

[12]  Guanghua Yan,et al.  On the sensitivity of patient‐specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors , 2009, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[13]  S. Kry,et al.  Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Bo Lu,et al.  Calibration of a novel four-dimensional diode array. , 2009, Medical physics.

[15]  D Huyskens,et al.  Practical guidelines for routine intensity-modulated radiotherapy verification: pre-treatment verification with portal dosimetry and treatment verification with in vivo dosimetry. , 2010, The British journal of radiology.

[16]  Jon J Kruse,et al.  On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies. , 2010, Medical physics.

[17]  J. Galvin,et al.  Safety considerations for IMRT: Executive summary , 2011, Practical radiation oncology.

[18]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Statistical variability and confidence intervals for planar dose QA pass rates. , 2011, Medical physics.

[19]  J. Uzan,et al.  An analytical approach to acceptance criteria for quality assurance of Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy. , 2011, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[20]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors. , 2011, Medical physics.

[21]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA. , 2011, Medical physics.

[22]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Evaluation of a new VMAT QA device, or the “X” and “O” array geometries , 2011, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[23]  Geoffrey G. Zhang,et al.  Optimizing the accuracy of a helical diode array dosimeter: a comprehensive calibration methodology coupled with a novel virtual inclinometer. , 2011, Medical physics.

[24]  Lei Dong,et al.  Dosimetry tools and techniques for IMRT. , 2011, Medical physics.

[25]  Geoffrey S Ibbott,et al.  American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Practice Guideline for Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) , 2012, American journal of clinical oncology.

[26]  Núria Jornet,et al.  3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification. , 2012, Medical physics.

[27]  Sara Bresciani,et al.  Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. , 2012, Medical physics.

[28]  Jonas D Fontenot,et al.  Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments. , 2012, Medical physics.

[29]  Jonas D Fontenot,et al.  Comparison of action levels for patient-specific quality assurance of intensity modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments. , 2012, Medical physics.

[30]  Sharon C Dutton,et al.  On using 3D γ-analysis for IMRT and VMAT pretreatment plan QA. , 2012, Medical physics.

[31]  F. García-Vicente,et al.  Sensitivity of a helical diode array device to delivery errors in IMRT treatment and establishment of tolerance level for pretreatment QA , 2012, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[32]  Vladimir Feygelman,et al.  Real-world examples of sensitivity failures of the 3%/3mm pass rate metric and published action levels when used in IMRT/VMAT system commissioning , 2013 .

[33]  Sara Bresciani,et al.  Tomotherapy treatment plan quality assurance: the impact of applied criteria on passing rate in gamma index method. , 2013, Medical physics.

[34]  Benjamin E Nelms,et al.  Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. , 2013, Medical physics.

[35]  Martin A Ebert,et al.  A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems. , 2013, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[36]  Rob Barnett,et al.  Delivery quality assurance with ArcCHECK. , 2013, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[37]  Todd Pawlicki,et al.  Statistical process control analysis for patient-specific IMRT and VMAT QA , 2012, Journal of radiation research.

[38]  Francesco C Stingo,et al.  Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans. , 2014, Medical physics.

[39]  L. Court,et al.  A six‐year review of more than 13,000 patient‐specific IMRT QA results from 13 different treatment sites , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[40]  Jinkoo Kim,et al.  IMRT and RapidArc commissioning of a TrueBeam linear accelerator using TG‐119 protocol cases , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[41]  Maria F Chan,et al.  Using a Novel Dose QA Tool to Quantify the Impact of Systematic Errors Otherwise Undetected by Conventional QA Methods: Clinical Head and Neck Case Studies , 2014, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

[42]  David S Followill,et al.  Institutional patient-specific IMRT QA does not predict unacceptable plan delivery. , 2014, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[43]  Jin Ho Kim,et al.  The sensitivity of gamma-index method to the positioning errors of high-definition MLC in patient-specific VMAT QA for SBRT , 2014, Radiation oncology.

[44]  Niko Papanikolaou,et al.  Patient specific IMRT quality assurance with film, ionization chamber and detector arrays: Our institutional experience , 2015 .

[45]  James C. H. Chu,et al.  The sensitivity of ArcCHECK‐based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[46]  Xiance Jin,et al.  Correlation between gamma index passing rate and clinical dosimetric difference for pre-treatment 2D and 3D volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric verification. , 2015, The British journal of radiology.

[47]  Dong Soo Lee,et al.  Gamma analysis dependence on specified low‐dose thresholds for VMAT QA , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[48]  E. Ford,et al.  Quantifying the performance of in vivo portal dosimetry in detecting four types of treatment parameter variations. , 2015, Medical physics.

[49]  Laure Vieillevigne,et al.  Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors. , 2015, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.