Comparison of Gamma Index Passing Rate in Several Treatment Planning System Algorithms

S. Liura, S.A. Pawiro

Abstract


The verification of dose calculation algorithm in a new Treatment Planning System (TPS) can be evaluated by comparing the passing rate of the gamma index analysis of the evaluated algorithm and the clinically implemented algorithms. In the present investigation, the gamma index passing rates was investigated as the reference data in the verification of the new three-dimensional TPS. The algorithms which are used in this study are Pencil Beam Convolution (PBC) version 11.0.31 and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) version 11.0.31 in Eclipse v.11 TPS, and Fast Convolution (FC), Adaptive Convolution (AC), and Collapsed-Cone Convolution (CCC) in Pinnacle3 v.7.6c TPS. The 6 MV X-ray beam configurations were varied in the depth of measurement points, field sizes, source-to-surface distances, and wedge angles. The dose measurement was done using MatriXX Evolution and PTW 2D-array seven29. Then, OmniPro ImRT and Verisoft 3.1 software were chosen to analyze the gamma index from varied gamma criteria (3 %/3mm, 2 %/3mm, 3 %/2mm, and 2 %/2mm). Overall, the passing rate of AAA is the highest rate obtained of all algorithms. For gamma criterion of 2 %/2mm, the passing rate of AAA was 93.18 % ± 7.21 %, the passing rate of PBC was 89.76 % ± 7.21 %, and the passing rate of convolution algorithms was 76.84 % ± 11.10 %.


Keywords


Dose calculation algorithm; Gamma index analysis; Passing rate; TPS

Full Text:

PDF

References


Anonymous, Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer, Technical Reports Series No. 430, IAEA, Vienna (2004).

B. Fraass, K Doppke, M. Hunt et al., Med. Phys. 25 (1998) 10.

J.B. Smilowitz, I.J. Das, V. Feygelman et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 16 (2015) 14.

J. Venselaar, H. Welleweerd and B. Mijnheer, Rad. Onco. 60 (2001) 191.

M. Atiq, A. Atiq, K. Iqbal et al., Polish Journal of Medical Physics and Engineering 23 (2017) 93.

M. Dumitrache and A. Tanase, Rom. Rep. Phys. 68 (2016) 1130.

X. Jin, H Yan, C Han et al., The British Institute of Radiology 88 (2015) 1.

A. Kadam and S.D. Sharma, International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology 4 (2016) 1.

J.I. Kim, J.B. Chung, J.Y. Song et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 17 (2016) 62.

S.B. Crowe, B. Sutherland, R. Wilks et al., Med. Phys. 43 (2016) 1501.

A.M. Flejmer, F. Dohlmar, M. Nilsson et al., Anticancer Res. 35 (2015) 2841.

R. Nandhana, S. Kotne, P.A. Rao et al., IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 15 (2016) 16.

L. Dunn, J. Lehmann, J. Lye et al., Phys. Med. 31 (2015) 435.

M. Hussien, Evaluation of Detector Array Technology for the Verification of Advanced Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Surrey (2015).

P. Caprile, C.D. Venencia and P. Besa et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 8 (2007) 47.

A. Zaman, M.B. Kakakhel and A. Hussain, Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice 18 (2019) 75

J.H. Song, M.J. Kim, S.H. Park et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 16 (2015) 263.

J.Y. Huang, K.B. Pulliam, E.M. McKenzie et al., J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys 14 (2015) 93.

K. Jabbari, F. Pashaei, M.R. Ay et al., J. Med. Signals. Sens. 8 (2017) 31.

P. Pathak, P.K. Mishra and N. Birbiya, J. Cancer Sci. Ther. 7 (2015) 161.



DOI -


https://doi.org/10.17146/aij.2020.899



Copyright (c) 2020 Atom Indonesia

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.