Slice Thickness Interpolation: The effect of interpolated slice thickness on the 2D vs 3D gamma results are shown in Table 3 for the QA data set only.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
RapidArc in Bergen Britt Nygaard, Harald Valen and Ellen Wasbø
Advertisements

A Phase III Prospective Randomized Trial of Acupuncture for Treatment of Radiation-Induced Xerostomia in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer CCOP Investigators’
Commissioning an Anthropomorphic Spine and Lung Phantom for Remote Dose Verification of Institutions Participating in RTOG 0631 Douglas Caruthers, M.S.;
In the past few years the usage of conformal and IMRT treatments has been increasing rapidly. These treatments employ the use of tighter margins around.
NC HPS Meeting 10/18-19/2001 Boone, NC Recent Advances in CT Technology and Issues of CT Dosimetry T. Yoshizumi 1,2, M. Sarder 1, R. Reiman 1,2, E. Paulson.
Challenges in Credentialing Institutions and Participants in Advanced Technology Clinical Trials Geoffrey Ibbott, David Followill, Andrea Molineu, Jessica.
Algorithms used in heterogeneous dose calculations show systematic error as measured with the Radiological Physics Center’s anthropomorphic thorax phantom.
Evaluation of the characteristics of TLD LiF:Mg.Ti-100 Powder: A Measure of Consistency Between Multiple Batches of Powder Paola Alvarez,Jose Francisco.
Background:  IMRT has become the choice of treatment for disease sites that require critical structure sparing such as head and neck cancer.  It has.
Lotte Verbunt Investigation of leaf positioning accuracy of two types of Siemens MLCs making use of an EPID.
Retrieval Evaluation. Introduction Evaluation of implementations in computer science often is in terms of time and space complexity. With large document.
An algorithm for metal streaking artifact reduction in cone beam CT M. Bazalova 1,2, G. Landry 1, L. Beaulieu 3, F. Verhaegen 1,4 1-McGill University,
Tissue inhomogeneities in Monte Carlo treatment planning for proton therapy L. Beaulieu 1, M. Bazalova 2,3, C. Furstoss 4, F. Verhaegen 2,5 (1) Centre.
Introduction The effect of air-cavities within the human body, for example in the head and neck regions, present possible sources of error when calculating.
Innovation/Impact: By designing a simulated human shaped (anthropomorphic) plastic phantom with targets, organs at risk (OAR) and heterogeneities, the.
Introduction Modern radiation therapies such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volume modulated arc therapy (VMAT) demand from dose calculation.
Results The measured-to-predicted dose ratio criteria used by the RPC to credential institutions is , however for this work, a criteria of
UAMS Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Evaluation of New Pre-Treatment In-Air Patient Specific QA Software for TomoTherapy Treatments Lydia L. Handsfield¹, Quan Chen¹, Kai Ding¹, Wendel Renner²,
Introduction Ion recombination is approximately corrected for in the Task-Group-51 protocol by P ion, which is calculated by a two-voltage measurement.
Quality Assurance for a modern treatment planning system
Patient Plan Results: Table 3 shows the ratio of the Pinnacle TPS calculation to the DPM recalculation for the mean dose from selected regions of interest.
Applications of Geant4 in Proton Radiotherapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Jerimy C. Polf Assistant Professor Department of Radiation.
Dose-Volume Based Ranking of Incident Beams and its Utility in Facilitating IMRT Beam Placement Jenny Hai, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology Stanford.
Surface dose prediction and verification for IMRT plans using line dose profiles † Ronald E. Berg, † Michael S. Gossman and ‡ Stephen J. Klash † Erlanger.
Clinico-Dosimetric Correlation for Acute and Chronic Gastrointestinal Toxicity in Patients of Locally Advanced Carcinoma Cervix Treated With Conventional.
IMRT QA Plan Site 5%/3mm3%/3mm2%/2mm 0% noise1% noise2% noise0% noise1% noise2% noise0% noise1% noise2% noise HN
Ye, Sung-Joon, Ph.D. Ove, Roger, M.D., Ph.D.; Shen, Sui, Ph.D.
Application of a 2-D ionization chamber array for dose verification of dynamic IMRT with a micro-MLC Fujio ARAKI, PhD 1, S. TAJIRI 2, H. TOMINAGA 2, K.
Introduction Commercial implementations of the convolution/superposition (C/S) method make several approximations, which can lead to dose calculation inaccuracies.
ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL BRUISE VOLUME OF SELECTED FRUITS USING MR IMAGING Ta-Te Lin, Yu-Che Cheng, Jen-Fang Yu Department of Bio-Industrial Mechatronics.
Commissioning of an Optically-Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) system for remote dosimetry audits J.F. Aguirre, P. Alvarez, C. Amador, A. Tailor, D. Followill,
Introduction Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is recognised as offering potential benefits in the delineation of target volumes for radiotherapy (RT). For.
Radiological Physics Center David Followill, Ph.D. and RPC Staff.
Fig. 3 shows how a dose distribution that is initially relatively sharp becomes blurred with time, until after 16 hours, virtually no useful information.
The Radiological Physics Center’s Anthropomorphic Quality Assurance Phantom Program Carrie F. Amador, Nadia Hernandez, Andrea Molineu, Paola Alvarez, and.
1 A Comprehensive Study on the Heterogeneity Dose Calculation Accuracy in IMRT using an Anthropomorphic Thorax Phantom S Davidson 1, R Popple 2, G Ibbott.
Electromagnetic redesign of the HYPERcollar applicator: towards improved deep local head-and-neck hyperthermia *P. Togni, Z. Rijnen, W.C.M. Numan, R.F.
Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy is Associated with Improved Global Quality of Life Among Long-Term Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer Allen M. Chen, M.D.,
Investigation of 3D Dosimetry for an Anthropomorphic Spine Phantom R. Grant 1,2, G. Ibbott 1, J. Yang 1, J. Adamovics 3, D Followill 1 (1)M.D. Anderson.
Development and Implementation of a Remote Audit Tool for High Dose Rate (HDR) 192 Ir Brachytherapy Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dosimetry Kevin.
S Scarboro 1,2, D Cody 1,2, D Followill 1,2, P Alvarez 1, M McNitt-Gray 3, D Zhang 3, L Court 1,2, S Kry 1,2 * 1 UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,
Mathematical Modelling within Radiotherapy: The 5 R’s of Radiotherapy and the LQ model. Helen McAneney 1 and SFC O’Rourke 1,2 1 School Mathematics and.
Alexis Dimitriadis Prof Karen Kirkby Prof Andrew Nisbet Dr Catharine Clark Dr Anthony Palmer.
K. Pulliam, MS 1,2., D Followill, PhD 2., L Court, PhD 2., L Dong, PhD 3., M Gillin, PhD 2., K Prado, PhD 3., S Kry, PhD 2 1 The University of Texas Graduate.
Introduction The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) anthropomorphic quality assurance (QA) phantom program is one tool the RPC uses to remotely audit institutions.
Conclusions Simulated fMRI phantoms with real motion and realistic susceptibility artifacts have been generated and tested using SPM2. Image distortion.
FDA Meeting June 9, 2010 “User Training” Donald A. Goer, Ph.D. Chief Scientist Intraop medical Corporation.
Radiation Therapy Trials - Quality Assurance:  patient safety  adherence to protocol constraints  uniformity of patient treatments  efficient review.
Purpose N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) polymer gel dosimeters were employed to verify the dose distribution of clinical intensity modulated radiation therapy.
Reducing excess imaging dose to cancer patients receiving radiotherapy Adam Schwertner, Justin Guan, Xiaofei Ying, Darrin Pelland, Ann Morris, Ryan Flynn.
UNIVERSAL SURVIVAL CURVE AND SINGLE FRACTION EQUIVALENT DOSE: USEFUL TOOLS IN UNDERSTANDING POTENCY OF ABLATIVE RADIOTHERAPY CLINT PARK, M.D. M.S., LECH.
The Effects of Small Field Dosimetry on the Biological Models Used In Evaluating IMRT Dose Distributions Gene Cardarelli,PhD, MPH.
Rapid Arc Treatment Verification: post evaluation on Delta-4 and proposal of a new verification protocol G. Pittomvils 1,,L. Paelinck 1, T. Boterberg 1,
Retroactive Calculation of TLD and Film Dose in Anthropomorphic Phantom as Assessment of Updated TPS Performance H. Alkhatib 1, S. Oves 1, B. Tsang 1,
Evaluation Of RTOG Guidelines For Monte Carlo Based Lung SBRT Planning
Left Posterior Superior Right Anterior Inferior
Template Matching Can Accurately Track Tumor Evaluation of Dose Calculation of RayStation Planning System in Heterogeneous Media Huijun Xu, Byongyong Yi,
'Monte Carlo modelling of a novel transmission detector: comparison of simulated and measured VMAT beams' Authors: D. Johnson1, S.J. Weston1, V.P. Cosgrove1,
A. Nisbet 1,2, A. Dimitriadis 1,2,3, A.L. Palmer 1,4, C.H. Clark 2,3
Y. Yan1, V. Adhikarla1, M. W. Kissick1,2, D. Campos1, D. H. Zhao1, S
CT-based surrogates of pulmonary ventilation in lung cancer:
Fig. 4. Percentage of passing rate between clinical and 544 plans.
Reducing Treatment Time and MUs by using Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy for SBRT Breath-Hold Patients Timothy Miller, Sebastian Nunez Albermann, Besil Raju,
Insert tables Insert figure
Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) versus Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) for Anal Carcinoma Heather Ortega, BSRT(T), CMD, Kerry Hibbitts,
Dosimetry of Alternative Techniques for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Hanh Pham, B.S, CMD, Thanh Nguyen, BS, Christina Henson, MD, Salahuddin.
A Multi-Institutional Dosimetric Evaluation of Proton Versus Photon Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma F. Khan, B. Nguyen,
Proton Therapy for Thymic Malignancies: Multi-institutional Patterns-of-Care and Early Clinical Outcomes from the Proton Collaborative Group Registry &
Average Dose-Volume Ratio
Presentation transcript:

Slice Thickness Interpolation: The effect of interpolated slice thickness on the 2D vs 3D gamma results are shown in Table 3 for the QA data set only. Although the 3D values are, again, better than the 2D, the change with interpolated thickness is approximately 1%.. Introduction Technological advancements in the field of radiation physics have led to the use of new 3D dosimeters and metrics for quality assurance (QA) 1,2,3 The 3D gamma metric is an extension of the 2D gamma metric (first introduced by Low et al 4 in 1998). It extends the analysis into a third dimensional axes thereby providing full volumetric γ assessment as an alternative to single plane analysis. Algorithms and methods for practical computation of 3D gamma have been explored in the literature 3,5, but to-date there has been no research to show how 2D acceptance criteria translates to 3D gamma for clinically relevant scenarios. The objective of this study was to establish 3D acceptance criteria equivalent to 2D. To accomplish this, we compared 2D and 3D gamma results (γ indices and percentage of pixels passing) for a variety of acceptance criteria, interpolated slice thickness, and dose-thresholds. Gamma was calculated for these plans by comparing the treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated (evaluated) and Monte Carlo-calculated dose distributions (reference). These analysis were completed for 50 clinical plans and the corresponding IMRT QA plans. Results 2D vs 3D Gamma: The results of the 50 QA and 50 Clinical gamma comparisons for a variety of acceptance criteria are shown in Table 1. As expected, for each acceptance criteria, the 3D results show better gamma agreement. The difference between the 2D and 3D results increased as the acceptance criteria tightened. This difference was more pronounced for the clinical comparisons than QA (1.8% vs 2.1% at 1%/1mm). Figure 1 is a comparison of 2D (a) and 3D (b) gamma analysis for a representative H&N IMRT plan. In this example, the plan would fail 2D analysis, but would pass if 3D analysis were used. The clinical consequence is a decreased ability to discover dosimetric errors during QA. These results demonstrate the potential clinical impact of switching to 3D gamma using the same 2D passing criteria. Conclusions Clinical use of 3D gamma analysis requires use of action limits (% of pixel passing and γ values) that are more stringent than 2D for comparable QA results. Specifically, our results suggest that the passing criteria should be increased between 0.5 and 4.0% depending on the acceptance criteria. References 1. W. Ansbacher,. Med. Phys. 33, (2006). 2. W. van Elmpt, Radiother Oncol, 86, (2008). 3. M. Wendling, Med. Phys. 34, (2007). 4.D. A. Low, Med. Phys. 25, 656–661 (1998). 5.L. C. G. G. Persoon, Med. Phys. 38, (2011). 6.S.I. Yang,Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. 66, (2006). 7.Rogers DWO,BEAMnrc users manual. National Research Council Report. Ottawa, Canada: National 2D vs 3D Gamma Analysis: Establishment of Comparable Clinical Action Limits Kiley Pulliam MS 1,2, Ryan Bosca MS 1,2, David Followill PhD 2, Jennifer O’Daniel PhD 3, Stephen Kry, PhD 2 1 The University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Houston, Houston, TX, 2 The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, NC Methods Fifty clinical plans and the corresponding QA plans were selected based on a previous study. The plans were distributed as follows: 41 head and neck (H&N), 1 thoracic (Thor), 2 mesothelioma (Meso), 1 gastrointenstinal (GI), 1 pediatric (Pedi), 1 genitourinary (GU), and 3 central nervous system (CNS) plans. Each of the 100 plans was re-calculated using an in-house Monte Carlo (MC) program (developed, validated in previous studies 6,7 ) to generate the ‘measured’, reference distribution for our gamma calculations. DoseLab (Mobius Medical Systems) software was used to calculate 2D and 3D γ values. The software generates side-by-side 2D and 3D γ values for each interpolated slice/volume thickness. For each of the 50 QA comparisons, all three tests below were performed while only the first two tests were performed for the 50 clinical comparisons. 1.5%/5mm, 3%/3mm, 2%/2mm, and 1%/1mm at 1 mm interpolated slice thickness with no-dose threshold. 2.3%/3mm with 5%, 10%, and 15% of Rx dose, low- dose threshold at 1mm interpolated slice thickness. 3.3%/3mm at 1, 1.5, and 3mm interpolated slice thickness with no-dose threshold. Table 1. 2D vs 3D comparisons of average gamma and percentage of pixel passing acceptance criteria averaged over 50 IMRT QA (a) and 50 Clinical (b) comparisons with no dose thresholding applied. 2D Gamma3D Gamma Acceptance Criteria Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing 5%/5mm % % 3%/3mm % % 2%/2mm % % 1%/1mm % % (a) 2D Gamma3D Gamma Acceptance Criteria Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing 5%/5mm % % 3%/3mm % % 2%/2mm % % 1%/1mm % % (b) 2D Gamma3D Gamma Low-Dose Threshold Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing None % % 5% % % 10% % % 15% % % 2D Gamma3D Gamma Low-Dose Threshold Average Gamma Average % of Pixels Passing Average Gamma Average % of Pixels Passing None % % 5% % % 10% % % 15% % % (b) 2D Gamma3D Gamma Interpolated Slice Thickness (mm) Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing Average Gamma Average % Pixels Passing % % % % % % (a) (b) Figure 1. 2D(a) and 3D(b) gamma maps of the same transverse slice showing gamma failing in 2D (γ =1.04) but passing in 3D (γ =0.52) for 3%/3mm acceptance criteria with a 15% low-dose threshold. 2D vs 3D Gamma with Low-Dose Threshold: Table 2 shows the same pattern of better agreement with 3D analysis as shown in Table 1, but the thresholding resulted in a more pronounced difference between 2D and 3D clinical gamma (2.1% vs 3.9% for no-thresholding and 15% threshold, respectively, at the tightest acceptance criteria. Table 2. 2D vs 3D comparisons of average gamma and percentage of pixel passing acceptance criteria averaged over 50 IMRT QA (a) and 50 Clinical (b) comparisons with 0 5, 10, and 15% low-dose threshold applied at 3%/3mm. (a) Table 3. The overall averages for the 50 QA comparisons performed at 3%/3mm at 1, 1.5, and 3mm interpolated slice thickness Support This investigation was supported by PHS grant CA10953 awarded by the NCI, DHHS