[an error occurred while processing this directive] | [an error occurred while processing this directive]
The application and correlation study of γ rule and DVH evaluation for VMAT dose verification evaluation of cervical cancer patients
Ma YangGuang1, Mai Rizhen2, Pei Yuntong1, Wang Fangna1, Liu Lele1, Guo Yuexin1
1Department of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China; 2Department of Medical Equipment, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450052, China
AbstractObjective To evaluate the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dose verification of cervical cancer based on γ rule and dose volume histogram (DVH) and to perform correlation analysis between the evaluation results and the dose differences. Methods Twenty cervical cancer VMAT plans were selected and performed on TrueBeam Linac. The delivered point and surface dose was measured by FC-65G and ArcCheck and the results were compared to those calculated by Eclipse. The dose of patients was reconstructed by 3DVH. Then, differences between the reconstructed and plan value of Dmean,D95%,D98% and D2% of PTV, V20Gy of left and right femoral head, V40Gy of rectum, D1cm3 of cord, D98%,D2% and D50% of the 50% prescription iso-dose volume (IDV), were evaluated and 3-dimensional (3D) γ was assessed for each organ. Lastly, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to analyze the relationship between point dose difference, 2D γ pass-rate (γ%), γmean and 3D γ% of each organ and the dose difference. Results Small differences were found between the point dose measured, reconstructed and the plan value. Differences between Dmean of PTV, all dose parameters of IDV and plan values were all within 3% and V40Gy of rectum showed the largest difference. As for the 3D γ%, the maximum pass rate was found for the left and right femoral head and the maximum variance for cord D1cm3. There was a moderate correlation between measured and reconstructed point dose deviation and dose difference of each organ, while no significant correlation was found for 2D γ%. Strong correlation was found between 3D γ% of target and D50% of PTV/IDV and no correlation was found for other organs. Conclusion The performance of both γ-and DVH-based evaluation can reveal dose error for dose verification, but both of them have some limitations and should be combined in clinical practice.
Fund:Key project of Medical science and Technology of Henan Province (SBGJ202102102);Henan Provincial Science and Technology Research Project (212102310251);Introduction of high-end foreign experts in Henan Province (HNGD2022030)
Ma YangGuang,Mai Rizhen,Pei Yuntong et al. The application and correlation study of γ rule and DVH evaluation for VMAT dose verification evaluation of cervical cancer patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2022, 31(5): 450-455.
Ma YangGuang,Mai Rizhen,Pei Yuntong et al. The application and correlation study of γ rule and DVH evaluation for VMAT dose verification evaluation of cervical cancer patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2022, 31(5): 450-455.
[1] Park JM, Kim JI, Park SY, et al. Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans[J]. Radiat Oncol, 2018, 13(1):175. DOI:10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x. [2] Ohira S, Ueda Y, Isono M, et al. Can clinically relevant dose errors in patient anatomy be detected by gamma passing rate or modulation complexity score in volumetric-modulated arc therapy for intracranial tumors?[J]. J Radiat Res, 2017, 58(5):685-692. DOI:10.1093/jrr/rrx006. [3] Vieillevigne L, Molinier J, Brun T, et al. Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors[J]. Phys Med, 2015, 31(7):720-725. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.05.016. [4] Nelms BE, Zhen H, Tomé 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. [5] Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA:recommendations of AAPM task group No. 218[J]. Med Phys, 2018, 45(4):e53-e83. DOI:10.1002/mp.12810. [6] Sunjic S, Ceberg C, Bokulic T. Statistical analysis of the gamma evaluation acceptance criteria:A simulation study of 2D dose distributions under error free conditions[J]. Phys Med, 2018, 52:42-47. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.06.633. [7] 陈阿龙,陈立新,陈利,等. 基于三维影像解剖结构的调强剂量验证的初步研究[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志, 2014, 23(4):352-356. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2014.04.019. Chen EL, Chen LX, Chen L,et al. A primary research of intensity-modulated dose verification based on anatomic structure of three-dimensional images[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2014,23(4):352-356. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2014.04.019. [8] van der Bijl E, van Oers R, Olaciregui-Ruiz I, et al. Comparison of gamma-and DVH-based in vivo dosimetric plan evaluation for pelvic VMAT treatments[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2017, 125(3):405-410. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.09.014. [9] Visser R, Wauben DJ, de Groot M, et al. Evaluation of DVH-based treatment plan verification in addition to gamma passing rates for head and neck IMRT[J]. Radiother Oncol, 2014, 112(3):389-395. DOI:10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.002. [10] 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. [11] 马阳光,麦日珍,裴运通,等。基于患者解剖结构三维剂量重建进行容积调强弧形治疗剂量验证初探[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2022,31(2):170-175. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20200703-00341. Ma YG, Mai RZ, Pei YT, et al. Preliminary application of volumetric-modulated arc therapy dosimetry verification system based on three-dimensional dose reconstruction of patient anatomical structures[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2022,31(2):170-175. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn113030-20200703-00341. [12] Chan MF, Li J, Schupak K, 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[J]. Technol Cancer Res Treat, 2014, 13(1):57-67. DOI:10.7785/tcrt.2012.500353. [13] Bojechko C, Ford EC. Quantifying the performance of in vivo portal dosimetry in detecting four types of treatment parameter variations[J]. Med Phys, 2015, 42(12):6912-6918. DOI:10.1118/1.4935093. [14] Steers JM, Fraass BA. IMRT QA:selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity[J]. Med Phys, 2016, 43(4):1982. DOI:10.1118/1.4943953. [15] Kadoya N, Kon Y, Takayama Y, et al. Quantifying the performance of two different types of commercial software programs for 3D patient dose reconstruction for prostate cancer patients:machine log files vs. machine log files with EPID images[J]. Phys Med, 2018, 45:170-176. DOI:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.12.018. [16] Saito M, Kadoya N, Sato K, et al. Comparison of DVH-based plan verification methods for VMAT:ArcCheck-3DVH system and dynalog-based dose reconstruction[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2017, 18(4):206-214. DOI:10.1002/acm2.12123. [17] Howell RM, Scarboro SB, Kry SF, et al. Accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations by a commercial treatment planning system[J]. Phys Med Biol, 2010, 55(23):6999-7008. DOI:10.1088/0031-9155/55/23/S03. [18] 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.
2022, Vol. 31 
