PURPOSE
A number of techniques are available to determine the dosimetric impact of intrafraction motion during intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Motion-induced dose perturbations can be determined both computationally and experimentally using a number of different dosimetric metrics. However, these measures may lead to different conclusions regarding the clinical impact of motion. This study compares the analysis of identical dose perturbations using different dosimetric metrics. Calculated changes in target D95% are used as a reference.
METHODS
A total of 3768 motion-encoded dose distributions were calculated for nine lung tumor patients. The motion-encoded dose distributions were compared to static dose distributions using three dosimetric metrics: 2D γ, 3D γ, and histogram analysis. Each of these metrics was used to analyze dose perturbations both globally and within the target structure. Furthermore, the failing voxels were analyzed separately according to failure mode, i.e., under vs. over-dosed voxels. Metrics were evaluated based on their agreement with changes in target D95% . Evaluations included the metrics' maximum average sensitivity and specificity (MASS) in detecting unacceptable deliveries, a coefficient correlated to ranking (τ), and the linear correlation coefficient, r.
RESULTS
Of the evaluated metrics, the histogram metric restricted to the under-dosed voxels within the target agreed best with changes in target D95% . This metric achieved a MASS of 0.93, a τ of 0.69, and an r-value of 0.85. In comparison, the unrestricted 2D γ metric achieved MASS = 0.77, τ = 0.40, and r = 0.67. Restricting the 2D γ test both geographically and in failure mode increased the MASS to 0.85, τ to 0.70, and the r-value to 0.80.
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that any clinical decisions based solely on an unrestricted 2D γ metric are suboptimal. A geographic and failure mode restriction can improve results. The remaining uncertainties with non-DVH (dose volume histogram) based metrics should be kept in mind when they are used to evaluate the dosimetric impact of target motion.
[1]
Jan-Jakob Sonke,et al.
A fast algorithm for gamma evaluation in 3D.
,
2007,
Medical physics.
[2]
Benjamin E Nelms,et al.
Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors.
,
2011,
Medical physics.
[3]
Steve B. Jiang,et al.
Effects of motion on the total dose distribution.
,
2004,
Seminars in radiation oncology.
[4]
D. Altman,et al.
Statistics Notes: Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity
,
1994
.
[5]
Paul J Keall,et al.
An analysis of thoracic and abdominal tumour motion for stereotactic body radiotherapy patients
,
2008,
Physics in medicine and biology.
[6]
Benjamin E Nelms,et al.
On the dose to a moving target while employing different IMRT delivery mechanisms.
,
2007,
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.
[7]
Jeffrey V Siebers,et al.
A computational method for estimating the dosimetric effect of intra-fraction motion on step-and-shoot IMRT and compensator plans.
,
2010,
Physics in medicine and biology.
[8]
Ke Sheng,et al.
A motion phantom study on helical tomotherapy: the dosimetric impacts of delivery technique and motion
,
2006,
Physics in medicine and biology.
[9]
J. Dempsey,et al.
Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method.
,
2003,
Medical physics.