Program Information
A Correlation Study of 2D and 3D Gamma Passing Rates for Prostate IMRT Plans
D ZHANG1,2*, B Wang1 , X Deng2 , C Ma1 , (1) Fox chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (2) Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong
Presentations
SU-E-T-20 (Sunday, July 12, 2015) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose:To investigate the correlation between the two-dimensional gamma passing rate (2D %GP) and three-dimensional gamma passing rate (3D %GP) in prostate IMRT quality assurance.
Methods:Eleven prostate IMRT plans were randomly selected from the clinical database and were used to obtain dose distributions in the phantom and patient. Three types of delivery errors (MLC bank sag errors, central MLC errors and monitor unit errors) were intentionally introduced to modify the clinical plans through an in-house Matlab program. This resulted in 187 modified plans. The 2D %GP and 3D %GP were analyzed using different dose-difference and distance-to-agreement (1%-1mm, 2%-2mm and 3%-3mm) and 20% dose threshold. The 2D %GP and 3D %GP were then compared not only for the whole region, but also for the PTVs and critical structures using the statistical Pearson’s correlation coefficient (γ).
Results:For different delivery errors, the average comparison of 2D %GP and 3D %GP showed different conclusions. The statistical correlation coefficients between 2D %GP and 3D %GP for the whole dose distribution showed that except for 3%/3mm criterion, 2D %GP and 3D %GP of 1%/1mm criterion and 2%/2mm criterion had strong correlations (Pearson’s γ value >0.8). Compared with the whole region, the correlations of 2D %GP and 3D %GP for PTV were better (the γ value for 1%/1mm, 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm criterion was 0.959, 0.931 and 0.855, respectively). However for the rectum, there was no correlation between 2D %GP and 3D %GP.
Conclusion:For prostate IMRT, the correlation between 2D %GP and 3D %GP for the PTV is better than that for normal structures. The lower dose-difference and DTA criterion shows less difference between 2D %GP and 3D %GP. Other factors such as the dosimeter characteristics and TPS algorithm bias may also influence the correlation between 2D %GP and 3D %GP.
Contact Email: