SU‐E‐T‐386: Gamma Analysis of Normalized and Un‐Normalized Dose Distributions

S. Stojadinovic, O. Luo, Q. Bao, A. Pompos, X. gu, T. Solberg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The gamma index method, as currently implemented in all commercial QA software, calls for selection of a normalization point to evaluate agreement between two dose distributions. The implication of this is that there is an infinite number of possible solutions! Which one to pick? A unique and more relevant solution is obtained only if no normalization point is used.Methods and Materials: The set of test cases suggested by the AAPM TG1 19 were planned using Pinnacle 8.0m and delivered on a Varian 21EX linac for 6 and 18 MV photons. The recommended point and planar dose measurements were obtained using a Pinpoint ion chamber, EDR2 film and MatriXX. The gamma index method using typical 3%, 3 mm criteria with and without a normalization point was used to assess the agreement between calculated and delivered planar dose distributions. The analysis was extended to a set of data for clinically treated patients. Results: The comparison with the TG119 benchmark data showed that all point dose and planar measurements for 6 MV were within the published range. Similar results, although without published data to compare with, were obtained for 18 MV as well. For all complex tests, the percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3%, 3 mm was (95.8±1.6)% and (95.6±1.0)% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. Without a normalization point, however, the same gamma analysis fell to (20.7±6.7)% and (13.9±4.0)% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. The clinical data set showed the same trend, with the gamma passing rate declining from (98.9±0.7)% to (33.4±13.1)%. Conclusion: The gamma index method provides a unique answer for gamma passing rate only without normalizing dose distributions to any particular point. The common gamma criteria of 3%, 3 mm, however, is a very poor metric in that case.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume39
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Photons
Software
Ions
Datasets

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐386 : Gamma Analysis of Normalized and Un‐Normalized Dose Distributions. / Stojadinovic, S.; Luo, O.; Bao, Q.; Pompos, A.; gu, X.; Solberg, T.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 39, No. 6, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e7a73a7eee4741ec91f7bb40abeb2ef2,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐386: Gamma Analysis of Normalized and Un‐Normalized Dose Distributions",
abstract = "Purpose: The gamma index method, as currently implemented in all commercial QA software, calls for selection of a normalization point to evaluate agreement between two dose distributions. The implication of this is that there is an infinite number of possible solutions! Which one to pick? A unique and more relevant solution is obtained only if no normalization point is used.Methods and Materials: The set of test cases suggested by the AAPM TG1 19 were planned using Pinnacle 8.0m and delivered on a Varian 21EX linac for 6 and 18 MV photons. The recommended point and planar dose measurements were obtained using a Pinpoint ion chamber, EDR2 film and MatriXX. The gamma index method using typical 3{\%}, 3 mm criteria with and without a normalization point was used to assess the agreement between calculated and delivered planar dose distributions. The analysis was extended to a set of data for clinically treated patients. Results: The comparison with the TG119 benchmark data showed that all point dose and planar measurements for 6 MV were within the published range. Similar results, although without published data to compare with, were obtained for 18 MV as well. For all complex tests, the percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3{\%}, 3 mm was (95.8±1.6){\%} and (95.6±1.0){\%} for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. Without a normalization point, however, the same gamma analysis fell to (20.7±6.7){\%} and (13.9±4.0){\%} for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. The clinical data set showed the same trend, with the gamma passing rate declining from (98.9±0.7){\%} to (33.4±13.1){\%}. Conclusion: The gamma index method provides a unique answer for gamma passing rate only without normalizing dose distributions to any particular point. The common gamma criteria of 3{\%}, 3 mm, however, is a very poor metric in that case.",
author = "S. Stojadinovic and O. Luo and Q. Bao and A. Pompos and X. gu and T. Solberg",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1118/1.4735475",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐386

T2 - Gamma Analysis of Normalized and Un‐Normalized Dose Distributions

AU - Stojadinovic, S.

AU - Luo, O.

AU - Bao, Q.

AU - Pompos, A.

AU - gu, X.

AU - Solberg, T.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Purpose: The gamma index method, as currently implemented in all commercial QA software, calls for selection of a normalization point to evaluate agreement between two dose distributions. The implication of this is that there is an infinite number of possible solutions! Which one to pick? A unique and more relevant solution is obtained only if no normalization point is used.Methods and Materials: The set of test cases suggested by the AAPM TG1 19 were planned using Pinnacle 8.0m and delivered on a Varian 21EX linac for 6 and 18 MV photons. The recommended point and planar dose measurements were obtained using a Pinpoint ion chamber, EDR2 film and MatriXX. The gamma index method using typical 3%, 3 mm criteria with and without a normalization point was used to assess the agreement between calculated and delivered planar dose distributions. The analysis was extended to a set of data for clinically treated patients. Results: The comparison with the TG119 benchmark data showed that all point dose and planar measurements for 6 MV were within the published range. Similar results, although without published data to compare with, were obtained for 18 MV as well. For all complex tests, the percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3%, 3 mm was (95.8±1.6)% and (95.6±1.0)% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. Without a normalization point, however, the same gamma analysis fell to (20.7±6.7)% and (13.9±4.0)% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. The clinical data set showed the same trend, with the gamma passing rate declining from (98.9±0.7)% to (33.4±13.1)%. Conclusion: The gamma index method provides a unique answer for gamma passing rate only without normalizing dose distributions to any particular point. The common gamma criteria of 3%, 3 mm, however, is a very poor metric in that case.

AB - Purpose: The gamma index method, as currently implemented in all commercial QA software, calls for selection of a normalization point to evaluate agreement between two dose distributions. The implication of this is that there is an infinite number of possible solutions! Which one to pick? A unique and more relevant solution is obtained only if no normalization point is used.Methods and Materials: The set of test cases suggested by the AAPM TG1 19 were planned using Pinnacle 8.0m and delivered on a Varian 21EX linac for 6 and 18 MV photons. The recommended point and planar dose measurements were obtained using a Pinpoint ion chamber, EDR2 film and MatriXX. The gamma index method using typical 3%, 3 mm criteria with and without a normalization point was used to assess the agreement between calculated and delivered planar dose distributions. The analysis was extended to a set of data for clinically treated patients. Results: The comparison with the TG119 benchmark data showed that all point dose and planar measurements for 6 MV were within the published range. Similar results, although without published data to compare with, were obtained for 18 MV as well. For all complex tests, the percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3%, 3 mm was (95.8±1.6)% and (95.6±1.0)% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. Without a normalization point, however, the same gamma analysis fell to (20.7±6.7)% and (13.9±4.0)% for 6 MV and 18 MV, respectively. The clinical data set showed the same trend, with the gamma passing rate declining from (98.9±0.7)% to (33.4±13.1)%. Conclusion: The gamma index method provides a unique answer for gamma passing rate only without normalizing dose distributions to any particular point. The common gamma criteria of 3%, 3 mm, however, is a very poor metric in that case.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024822764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024822764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.4735475

DO - 10.1118/1.4735475

M3 - Article

C2 - 28517202

AN - SCOPUS:85024822764

VL - 39

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -