Reliability of the gamma index analysis as a verification method of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans

• Main Authors: Jong Min Park, Jung-in Kim, So-Yeon Park, Do Hoon Oh, Sang-Tae Kim
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2018-09-01
• Series: Radiation Oncology
• Subjects: Gamma passing rate; Volumetric modulated arc therapy; Patient-specific quality assurance; Log file analysis; Modulation degree
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-018-1123-x

Abstract Background We investigate the gamma passing rate (GPR) consistency when applying different types of gamma analyses, linacs, and dosimeters for volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Methods A total of 240 VMAT plans for various treatment sites, which were generated with Trilogy (140 plans) and TrueBeam STx (100 plans), were retrospectively selected. For each VMAT plan, planar dose distributions were measured with both MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK dosimeters. During the planar dose distribution measurements, the actual multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, gantry angles, and delivered monitor units were recorded and compared to the values in the original VMAT plans to calculate mechanical errors. For each VMAT plan, both the global and local gamma analyses were performed with 3%/3 mm, 2%/2 mm, 2%/1 mm, 1%/2 mm, and 1%/1 mm. The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated 1) between the global and the local GPRs, 2) between GPRs with the MapCHECK2 and the ArcCHECK dosimeters, 3) and between GPRs and the mechanical errors during the VMAT delivery. Results For the MapCHECK2 measurements, strong correlations between the global and local GPRs were observed only with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm (r > 0.8 with p < 0.001), while weak or no correlations were observed for the ArcCHECK measurement. Between the MapCHECK2 and ArcCHECK measurements, the global GPRs showed no correlations (all with p > 0.05), while the local GPRs showed moderate correlations only with 2%/1 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx (r > 0.5 with p < 0.001). Both the global and local GPRs always showed weak or no correlations with the MLC positional errors except for the GPRs of MapCHECK2 with 1%/2 mm and 1%/1 mm for TrueBeam STx and the GPR of ArcCHECK with 1%/2 mm for Trilogy (r < − 0.5 with p < 0.001). Conclusions The GPRs varied according to the types of gamma analyses, dosimeters, and linacs. Therefore, each institution should carefully establish their own gamma analysis protocol by determining the type of gamma index analysis and the gamma criterion with their own linac and their own dosimeter.