Study of the optimal thresholds of gamma passing rate in VMAT plan verification for cervical cancer
Liu Lidong1, Yang Zhen2, Zhong Meizuo1, Zhao Yuqian3, Lei Mingjun2, Cao Ying2, Yang Xiaoyu2, Tang Du2, Zhang Xiaoming1, Li Chen1
1Department of Oncology,Xiangya Changde Hospital,Changde 415000,China ; 2Department of Oncology,Xiangya Hospital to Central South University,Changsha 410008,China ; 3College of Information Science and Engineering,Central South University,Changsha 410083,China;
Abstract： Objective To investigate the optimal thresholds of the passing rate with different gamma measurement criteria (percent dose difference/DTA) based on the Delta 4 three-dimensional dosimetric verification system in the verification of volumetric modulated arc-therapy (VMAT) plan for cervical cancer. Methods Thirty clinically-approved dual-arc VMAT plans using the RapidArcTM (Varian Medical Systems Inc.) for cervical cancer were randomly selected. The gamma analysis and dose-volume histogram (DVH) evaluation were performed using Delta 4. All the plans were classified according to the following two criteria:1. If the absolute percentage dose errors of all specific dosimetry indices on the DVH were less than 5%,the plan was regarded as clinically acceptable. 2. If the gamma passing rate was 90% or 95% under the criteria of 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm,the plan was regarded as acceptable. The sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted based on the classification results and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted. By calculating the Youden Index,the optimal thresholds under different Gamma criteria (global and local 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm) were investigated. Finally,the ability of distinguishing the plan was clinically acceptable or not between the conventional and optimal thresholds was quantitatively compared according to the sensitivity and specificity analyses. Results The optimal thresholds under the global 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria were 98.3% and 87.05%;and 97.55%、86.05% for the local gamma analysis. Compared with the conventional thresholds,the sensitivity of the optimal thresholds was 0.93 by using the global and local gamma analyses under the 3%/3 mm criterion. Under the 2%/2 mm criterion,the sensitivity of the optimal thresholds was 0.65 and the specificity was 0.49 by using the global gamma analysis. The sensitivity was 0.7 and the specificity was 0.46 by using the local gamma analysis,suggesting that the sensitivity and the specificity were more balanced under the 2%/2 mm criterion. Conclusions Application of the optimal thresholds in the verification of VMAT plans can maintain the balance between the sensitivity and specificity,prevent the harm of clinically unacceptable plans to patients to certain extent and reduce the probability of increasing the daily work load for physicists due to the misjudgement of clinically acceptable plans.
Liu Lidong,Yang Zhen,Zhong Meizuo et al. Study of the optimal thresholds of gamma passing rate in VMAT plan verification for cervical cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2019, 28(1): 32-36.
[1] Low DA,Harms WB,Mutic S,et al. A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions[J].Med Phys,1998,25(5):656-661.DOI:10.1118/1.598248. [2] Ezzell GA,Burmeister JW,Dogan N,et al. IMRT commissioning:multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons,a report from AAPM Task Group 119[J].Med Phys,2009,36(11):5359-5373.DOI:10.1118/1.3238104. [3] Nelms BE,Zhen H,Tome WA.Per-beam,planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors[J].Med Phys,2011,38(2):1037-1044.DOI:10.1118/1.3544657. [4] Zhen H,Nelms BE,Tome WA.Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pre-treatment dose QA[J].Med Phys,2011,38(10):5477-5489.DOI:10.1118/1.3633904. [5] Metz CE.Basic principles of ROC analysis[J].Semin Nucl Med.1978,8(4):283-298.DOI:10.1016/S0001-2998(78)80014-2. [6] Bedford JL,Lee YK,Wai P,et al. Evaluation of the Delta 4 phantom for IMRT and VMAT verification[J].Phys Med Biol,2009,54(8):167-176.DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/54/9/N04. [7] Sadagopan R,Bencomo JA,Martin RL,et al. Characterization and clinical evaluation of a novel IMRT quality assurance system[J].J Appl Clin Med Phys,2009,10(2):104-118.DOI:10.1120/jacmp.v10i2.2928. [8] Stasi M,Bresciani S,Miranti A,et al. Pretreatment patient specific IMRT quality assurance:a correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram[J].Med Phys,2012,39(12):7626-7634.DOI:10.1118/1.4767763. [9] Waghorn BJ,Meeks SL,Langen KM.Analyzing the impact of intrafraction motion:Correlation of different dose metrics ith changes in target D95%[J].Med Phys,2011,38(8):4505-4511.DOI:10.1118/1.3605633. [10] Jin X,Yan H,Han C,et al. Correlation between gamma index passing rate and clinical dosimetric difference for pre-treatment 2D and 3D volumetric modulated arc therapy dosimetric verification[J].Brit J Radiol,2015,88(1047):1-8.DOI:10.1259/bjr.20140577. [11] Cozzolino M,Oliviero C,Califano G,et al. Clinically relevant quality assurance (QA) for prostate RapidArc plans:Gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation[J].Phys Med,2014,30(4):462-472.DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.01.003. [12] Hanley JA,McNeil BJ.A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases[J].Radiology,1983,148(3):839-843.DOI:10.1148/ radiology.148.3.6878708. [13] Carrasco P,Jornet N,Latorre A,et al.3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification[J].Med Phys,2012,39(8):5040-5049.DOI:10.1118/1.4736949. [14] Carlone M,Cruje C,Rangel A,et al. ROC analysis in patient specific quality assurance[J].Med Phys,2013,40(4):310-318.DOI:10.1118/1.4795757. [15] McKenzie EM,Balter PA,Stingo FC,et al. Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans[J].Med Phys,2014,41(12):1-15.DOI:10.1118/ 1.4899177. [16] Hussein M,Rowshanfarzad P,Ebert MA,et al. A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems[J].Radiother Oncol,2013,109(3):370-376.DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2013.08.048.
2019, Vol. 28 
