Interpretation of Gamma Index for Quality Assurance of Simultaneously Integrated Boost (SIB) IMRT Plans for Head and Neck Carcinoma

Open access


Objective: The Gamma Index is prerequisite to estimate point-by-point difference between measured and calculated dose distribution in terms of both Distance to Agreement (DTA) and Dose Difference (DD). This study aims to inquire what percentage of pixels passing a certain criteria assure a good quality plan and suggest gamma index as efficient mechanism for dose verification of Simultaneous Integrated Boost Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy plans.

Method: In this study, dose was calculated for 14 head and neck patients and IMRT Quality Assurance was performed with portal dosimetry using the Eclipse treatment planning system. Eclipse software has a Gamma analysis function to compare measured and calculated dose distribution. Plans of this study were deemed acceptable when passing rate was 95% using tolerance for Distance to agreement (DTA) as 3mm and Dose Difference (DD) as 5%.

Result and Conclusion: Thirteen cases pass tolerance criteria of 95% set by our institution. Confidence Limit for DD is 9.3% and for gamma criteria our local CL came out to be 2.0% (i.e., 98.0% passing). Lack of correlation was found between DD and γ passing rate with R2 of 0.0509. Our findings underline the importance of gamma analysis method to predict the quality of dose calculation. Passing rate of 95% is achieved in 93% of cases which is adequate level of accuracy for analyzed plans thus assuring the robustness of SIB IMRT treatment technique. This study can be extended to investigate gamma criteria of 5%/3mm for different tumor localities and to explore confidence limit on target volumes of small extent and simple geometry.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Kouloulias V Antypas C Liakouli Z et al. The first implementation of IMRT technique for head & neck and prostate cancer patients in public sector in Greece: feasibility treatment planning and dose delivery verification using the delta (4PT) Pre-Treatment volumetric quality assurance system. J BUON. 2014;20(1):196-205.

  • [2] Roxby KJ Crosbie JC. Pre-treatment verification of intensity modulated radiation therapy plans using a commercial electronic portal dosimetry system. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2010;33(1):51-57.

  • [3] Franceschini D Paiar F Meattini I et al. Simultaneous integrated boost–intensity-modulated radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(12):E97-103.

  • [4] Mohan R Wu Q Manning M Schmidt-Ullrich R. Radiobiological considerations in the design of fractionation strategies for intensity-modulated radiation therapy of head and neck cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000;46(3):619-630.

  • [5] Krishnan J Rao S Hegde S Shetty J. A Dosimetric Comparison of Double Arc Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy with Large Field Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer. IJMPCERO. 2015;4(4):353-363.

  • [6] Suzuki M Nakamatsu K Kanamori S et al. Feasibility study of the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) method for malignant gliomas using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003;33(6):271-277.

  • [7] Elawady RA Attalla EM Elshemey WM et al. Dose verification of intensity modulated radiotherapy in head and neck tumors. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2014;2(3):02037.

  • [8] Agazaryan N Solberg TD DeMarco JJ. Patient specific quality assurance for the delivery of intensity modulated radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2003;4(1):40-50.

  • [9] Depuydt T Van Esch A Huyskens DP. A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. Radiother Oncol. 2002;62(3):309-319.

  • [10] Low DA Dempsey JF. Evaluation of the gamma dose distribution comparison method. Med Phys. 2003;30(9):2455-2464.

  • [11] Mijheer B Georg D. Guidelines for the verification of IMRT. Brussels Belgium: ESTRO; 2008.

  • [12] Ezzell GA Burmeister JW Dogan N et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):5359-5373.

  • [13] Tonigan JR. Evaluation of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) delivery error due to IMRT treatment plan complexity and improperly matched dosimetry data. MSc Thesis. The University of Texas. Houston Texas; 2011.

  • [14] Varatharaj C Ravikumar M Sathiyan S et al. Dosimetric verification of brain and head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy treatment using EDR2 films and 2D ion chamber array matrix. J Cancer Res Ther. 2010;6(2):179-184.

  • [15] Stasi M Bresciani S Miranti A et al. Pretreatment patient-specific IMRT quality assurance: A correlation study between gamma index and patient clinical dose volume histogram. Med Phys. 2012;39(12):7626-7634.

  • [16] Caivano R Califano G Fiorentino A et al. Clinically relevant quality assurance for intensity modulated radiotherapy plans: gamma maps and DVH-based evaluation. Cancer Invest. 2014;32(3):85-91.

  • [17] Li H Dong L Zhang L et al. Toward a better understanding of the gamma index: Investigation of parameters with a surface-based distance method. Med Phys. 2011;38(12):6730-6741.

  • [18] Molineu A Followill DS Balter PA et al. Design and implementation of an anthropomorphic quality assurance phantom for intensity-modulated radiation therapy for the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;63(2):577-583.

  • [19] Grégoire V Mackie TR. State of the art on dose prescription reporting and recording in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (ICRU report No. 83). Cancer Radiother. 2011;15(6-7):555-559.

  • [20] Chaikh A Desgranges C Balosso J. Statistical methods to evaluate the correlation between measured and calculated dose using quality assurance method in IMRT. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2015;3(4):

  • [21] Stock M Kroupa B Georg D. Interpretation and evaluation of the γ index and the γ index angle for the verification of IMRT hybrid plans. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(3):399-411.

  • [22] Chung JB Kim JS Ha SW Ye SJ. Statistical analysis of IMRT dosimetry quality assurance measurements for local delivery guideline. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6(1):27.

  • [23] Howell RM Smith IP Jarrio CS. Establishing action levels for EPID-based QA for IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys.2008;9(3):16-25.

  • [24] van Zijtveld M Dirkx ML de Boer HC Heijmen BJ. Dosimetric pre-treatment verification of IMRT using an EPID; clinical experience. Radiother Oncol. 2006;81(2):168-175.

  • [25] Childress NL White RA Bloch C et al. Retrospective analysis of 2D patient-specific IMRT verifications. Med Phys. 2005;32(4):838-850.

  • [26] Fraass B Doppke K Hunt M et al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys. 1998;25(10):1773-1829.

  • [27] Jang SY Liu HH Mohan R. Underestimation of low-dose radiation in treatment planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(5):1537-1546.

  • [28] Deng J Pawlicki T Chen Y et al. The MLC tongue-and-groove effect on IMRT dose distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46(4):1039-1060

  • [29] Li JS Lin T Chen L et al. Uncertainties in IMRT dosimetry. Med Phys. 2010;37(6):2491-2500.

  • [30] Das IJ Ding GX Ahnesjö A. Small fields: nonequilibrium radiation dosimetry. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):206-215.

  • [31] Ceberg C. A note on the interpretation of the gamma evaluation index. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2013;(444)1:012082.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.38

ICV 2017 = 103.49

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.132
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.303

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 311 151 16
PDF Downloads 141 64 3