Suppr超能文献

伽玛指数分析作为容积调强弧形治疗计划验证方法的可靠性。

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

机构信息

Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, South Korea.

出版信息

Radiat Oncol. 2018 Sep 14;13(1):175. doi: 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.

摘要

背景

我们研究了在容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)中应用不同类型的伽马分析、直线加速器和剂量仪时伽马通过率(GPR)的一致性。

方法

回顾性选择了来自两种不同直线加速器(瓦里安 TrueBeam STx 和医科达 Trilogy)的 240 个不同治疗部位的 VMAT 计划。对于每个 VMAT 计划,使用 MapCHECK2 和 ArcCHECK 剂量仪测量平面剂量分布。在平面剂量分布测量过程中,记录实际的多叶准直器(MLC)位置、机架角度和实际的照射量,与原始 VMAT 计划中的值进行比较,以计算机械误差。对于每个 VMAT 计划,分别使用 3%/3mm、2%/2mm、2%/1mm、1%/2mm 和 1%/1mm 进行全局和局部伽马分析。计算了 1)全局和局部 GPR 之间的 Pearson 相关系数(r),2)MapCHECK2 和 ArcCHECK 剂量仪之间的 GPR 之间的 r,3)VMAT 治疗过程中的 GPR 与机械误差之间的 r。

结果

对于 MapCHECK2 测量,仅在使用 1%/2mm 和 1%/1mm 时,全局和局部 GPR 之间观察到强相关性(r>0.8,p<0.001),而对于 ArcCHECK 测量则观察到弱相关性或无相关性。MapCHECK2 和 ArcCHECK 测量之间,全局 GPR 之间没有相关性(均 p>0.05),而局部 GPR 仅在 TrueBeam STx 中使用 2%/1mm 和 1%/1mm 时显示中度相关性(r>0.5,p<0.001)。全局和局部 GPR 与 MLC 位置误差之间仅存在弱相关性或无相关性,除了 TrueBeam STx 中使用 1%/2mm 和 1%/1mm 的 MapCHECK2 的 GPR 和 Trilogy 中使用 1%/2mm 的 ArcCHECK 的 GPR(r<-0.5,p<0.001)与 MLC 位置误差有强相关性。

结论

GPR 随伽马分析类型、剂量仪和直线加速器而变化。因此,每个机构都应通过确定伽马指数分析的类型和自己的直线加速器和剂量仪的伽马标准,仔细建立自己的伽马分析协议。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/661d/6137931/7cc0686d5a08/13014_2018_1123_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验