Premium
SU‐E‐T‐647: Quality Assurance of VMAT by Gamma Analysis Dependence On Low‐Dose Threshold
Author(s) -
Song J,
Kim M,
Park S,
Lee S,
Lee M,
Suh T
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4925010
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , dosimetry , quality assurance , normalization (sociology) , head and neck , physics , medicine , surgery , external quality assessment , pathology , sociology , anthropology
Purpose: The AAPM TG‐119 instructed institutions to use low‐dose threshold (LDT) of 10% or a ROI determined by the jaw when they collected gamma analysis QA data of planar dose distribution. Also, based on a survey by Nelms and Simon, more than 70% of institutions use a LDT between 0% and 10% for gamma analysis. However, there are no clinical data to quantitatively demonstrate the impact of the LDT on the gamma index. Therefore, we performed a gamma analysis with LDTs of 0% to 15% according to both global and local normalization and different acceptance criteria: 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. Methods: A total of 30 treatment plans—10 head and neck, 10 brain, and 10 prostate cancer cases—were randomly selected from the Varian Eclipse TPS, retrospectively. For the gamma analysis, a predicted portal image was acquired through a portal dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse TPS, and a measured portal image was obtained using a Varian Clinac iX and an EPID. Then, the gamma analysis was performed using the Portal Dosimetry software. Results: For the global normalization, the gamma passing rate (%GP) decreased as the LDT increased, and all cases of low‐dose thresholds exhibited a %GP above 95% for both the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. However, for local normalization, the %GP increased as LDT increased. The gamma passing rate with LDT of 10% increased by 6.86%, 9.22% and 6.14% compared with the 0% in the case of the head and neck, brain and prostate for 3%/3 mm criteria, respectively. Conclusion: Applying the LDT in the global normalization does not have critical impact to judge patient‐specific QA results. However, LDT for the local normalization should be carefully selected because applying the LDT could affect the average of the %GP to increase rapidly.