19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method.

      Medical physics
      Algorithms, Gamma Rays, Humans, Quality Control, Radiometry, methods, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Radiotherapy, Conformal, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Software, Stochastic Processes

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The gamma tool was developed to quantitatively compare dose distributions, either measured or calculated. Before computing gamma, the dose and distance scales of the two distributions, referred to as evaluated and reference, are renormalized by dose and distance criteria, respectively. The renormalization allows the dose distribution comparison to be conducted simultaneously along dose and distance axes. The gamma quantity, calculated independently for each reference point, is the minimum distance in the renormalized multidimensional space between the evaluated distribution and the reference point. The gamma quantity degenerates to the dose-difference and distance-to-agreement tests in shallow and very steep dose gradient regions, respectively. Since being introduced, the gamma quantity has been used by investigators to evaluate dose calculation algorithms, and compare dosimetry measurements. This manuscript examines the gamma distribution behavior in two dimensions and evaluates the gamma distribution in the presence of data noise. Noise in the evaluated distribution causes the gamma distribution to be underestimated relative to the no-noise, condition. Noise in the reference distribution adds noise in the gamma distribution in proportion to the normalized dose noise. In typical clinical use, the fraction of points that exceed 3% and 3 mm can be extensive, so we typically use 5% and 2-3 mm in clinical evaluations. For clinical cases, the calculation time is typically 5 minutes for a 1 x 1 mm2 interpolated resolution on an 800 MHz Pentium 4 for a 14.1 x 15.2 cm2 radiographic film.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.

          The commissioning of a three-dimensional treatment planning system requires comparisons of measured and calculated dose distributions. Techniques have been developed to facilitate quantitative comparisons, including superimposed isodoses, dose-difference, and distance-to-agreement (DTA) distributions. The criterion for acceptable calculation performance is generally defined as a tolerance of the dose and DTA in regions of low and high dose gradients, respectively. The dose difference and DTA distributions complement each other in their useful regions. A composite distribution has recently been developed that presents the dose difference in regions that fail both dose-difference and DTA comparison criteria. Although the composite distribution identifies locations where the calculation fails the preselected criteria, no numerical quality measure is provided for display or analysis. A technique is developed to unify dose distribution comparisons using the acceptance criteria. The measure of acceptability is the multidimensional distance between the measurement and calculation points in both the dose and the physical distance, scaled as a fraction of the acceptance criteria. In a space composed of dose and spatial coordinates, the acceptance criteria form an ellipsoid surface, the major axis scales of which are determined by individual acceptance criteria and the center of which is located at the measurement point in question. When the calculated dose distribution surface passes through the ellipsoid, the calculation passes the acceptance test for the measurement point. The minimum radial distance between the measurement point and the calculation points (expressed as a surface in the dose-distance space) is termed the gamma index. Regions where gamma > 1 correspond to locations where the calculation does not meet the acceptance criteria. The determination of gamma throughout the measured dose distribution provides a presentation that quantitatively indicates the calculation accuracy. Examples of a 6 MV beam penumbra are used to illustrate the gamma index.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers.

            The process of radiation therapy is complex and involves many steps. At each step, comprehensive quality assurance procedures are required to ensure the safe and accurate delivery of a prescribed radiation dose. This report deals with a comprehensive commissioning and ongoing quality assurance program specifically for treatment planning computers. Detailed guidelines are provided under the following topics: (a) computer program and system documentation and user training, (b) sources of uncertainties and suggested tolerances, (c) initial system checks, (d) repeated system checks, (e) quality assurance through manual procedures, and in vivo dosimetry, and (f) some additional considerations including administration and manpower requirements. In the context of commercial computerized treatment planning systems, uncertainty estimates and achievable criteria of acceptability are presented for: (a) external photon beams, (b) electron beams, (c) brachytherapy, and (d) treatment machine setting calculations. Although these criteria of acceptability appear large, they approach the limit achievable with most of today's treatment planning systems. However, developers of new or improved dose calculation algorithms should strive for the goal recommended by the International Commission of Radiation Units and Measurements of 2% in relative dose accuracy in low dose gradients or 2 mm spatial accuracy in regions with high dose gradients. For brachytherapy, the aim should be 3% accuracy in dose at distances of 0.5 cm or more at any point for any radiation source. Details are provided for initial commissioning tests and follow-up reproducibility tests. The final quality assurance for each patient is to perform an independent manual check of at least one point in the dose distributions, as well as the machine setting calculation. As a check of the overall treatment planning process, in vivo dosimetry should be performed on a select number of patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation.

              Although intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a step forward in comparison to conventional, static beam delivery, quality assurance is more complex and labour intensive, demanding detailed two-dimensional dosimetric verification. Regardless of the technique used for measuring the dose distribution, what is essential to the implementation of routine verification of IMRT fields is the efficient and accurate comparison of the measured versus desired dose distribution. In order to achieve a fast, yet accurate quantitative measure of the correspondence between measured and calculated dose, the theoretical concept of the gamma evaluation method presented by Low et al. (Med. Phys., 25 (1998) 656) was converted into a calculation algorithm, taking into account practical considerations related to the discrete nature of the data. A filter cascade of multiple levels was designed to obtain fast and accurate comparison of the two dose distributions under evaluation. The actual comparison consists of classification into accepted or rejected datapoints with respect to user-defined acceptance criteria (dose difference and distance to agreement). The presented algorithm was tested on dosimetric images calculated and/or acquired by means of a liquid filled portal imaging device during the course of intensity modulated treatments of prostate cancer, including pre-treatment verification as well as verification during treatment. To assess its ability to intercept possible errors in dose delivery, clinically relevant errors were deliberately introduced into the dose distributions. The developed gamma filter method proves successful in the efficient comparison of calculated versus measured IMRT dose distribution. Secondly, intercomparison of dosimetric images acquired during different treatment sessions illustrate its potential to highlight variations in the dosimetric images. The simulated errors were unmistakably intercepted. The readily obtained gamma evaluation images are an easy tool for quality control of IMRT fields. To reduce the artefacts related to the discrete nature and limited resolution of the data, a fast and accurate filter cascade was developed, offering the possibility to use the gamma method for day to day evaluation of patient dosimetric portal images with or without comparison to a predicted portal dose distribution.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Comments

                Comment on this article