Das Saikat, Kharade Vipin, Pandey V P, Kv Anju, Pasricha Rajesh K, Gupta Manish
Department of Radiation Oncology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, IND.
Cureus. 2022 Oct 30;14(10):e30885. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30885. eCollection 2022 Oct.
Purpose Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) by gamma (γ) analysis is an important component of high-precision radiotherapy. It is important to standardize institute-specific protocol. In this study, we describe our institutional experience of patient-specific QA for high-precision radiotherapy from a clinical perspective. Methods The planning data of 56 patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) were included. γ index analysis was done using Octavius 4D IMRT QA phantom (PTW, Freiburg, Germany) using 3 mm/3% criteria. Local, global, and volumetric gammas were calculated and compared. The relationship of γ index in the transverse, coronal, and sagittal direction and anatomical region of treatment was explored. Results Global three-dimensional (3D) γ indices in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse axes were 96.73 ± 2.35, 95.66 ± 3.01, and 93.36 ± 4.87 (p < 0.05). The average local two-dimensional (2D) γ index was 78.23 ± 5.44 and the global γ index was 92.41 ± 2.41 (p < 0.005). The average local 3D γ index was 84.99 ± 4.24 and the global 3D γ index was 95.25 ± 1.72 (p < 0.005, paired t-test). The average local volumetric γ index was 84.29 ± 4.73 and the global volumetric γ index was 95.96 ± 2.08 (p < 0.005). 3D global gamma index was significantly different in different anatomical regions (p < 0.05). Conclusion Our study shows that γ index analysis is a useful parameter for routine clinical IMRT QA. The choice of type of γ index depends on the context of use and degree of stringency in measurement. Average 2D and 3D global γ were different in anatomical regions. The average 3D γ index was significantly different in axes. No difference was observed with techniques of IMRT/VMAT. Localization of failed points in CT anatomy can be advantageous for clinical decision-making.
目的 通过伽马(γ)分析进行患者特异性质量保证(QA)是高精度放射治疗的重要组成部分。规范机构特定方案很重要。在本研究中,我们从临床角度描述了我们机构在高精度放射治疗患者特异性QA方面的经验。方法 纳入56例接受调强放射治疗(IMRT)/容积调强弧形治疗(VMAT)的患者的计划数据。使用Octavius 4D IMRT QA体模(PTW,德国弗莱堡)按照3 mm/3%标准进行γ指数分析。计算并比较局部、整体和容积γ值。探讨γ指数在横向、冠状和矢状方向与治疗解剖区域的关系。结果 冠状、矢状和横轴方向的整体三维(3D)γ指数分别为96.73±2.35、95.66±3.01和93.36±4.87(p<0.05)。平均局部二维(2D)γ指数为78.23±5.44,整体γ指数为92.41±2.41(p<0.005)。平均局部3Dγ指数为84.99±4.24,整体3Dγ指数为95.25±1.72(p<0.005,配对t检验)。平均局部容积γ指数为84.29±4.73,整体容积γ指数为95.96±2.08(p<0.005)。不同解剖区域的3D整体γ指数有显著差异(p<0.05)。结论 我们的研究表明,γ指数分析是常规临床IMRT QA的有用参数。γ指数类型的选择取决于使用背景和测量的严格程度。平均2D和3D整体γ值在解剖区域有所不同。平均3Dγ指数在轴向上有显著差异。IMRT/VMAT技术之间未观察到差异。在CT解剖结构中定位失败点有助于临床决策。