Gamma analysis with a gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy delivered with volumetric modulated arc therapy technique: a single institution experience

摘要

// Jung-in Kim 1, 2, 3 , Minsoo Chun 1, 2, 3 , Hong-Gyun Wu 1, 2, 3, 4 , Eui Kyu Chie 1, 2, 3, 4 , Hak Jae Kim 1, 2, 3, 4 , Jin Ho Kim 1, 2, 3 and Jong Min Park 1, 2, 3, 5 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea 2 Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea 3 Biomedical Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 5 Center for Convergence Research on Robotics, Advanced Institutes of Convergence Technology, Suwon, Republic of Korea Correspondence to: Jong Min Park, email: [email protected] Keywords: 2D gamma evaluation, pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance, volumetric modulated arc therapy, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, gamma criterion Received: January 31, 2017      Accepted: June 02, 2017      Published: June 16, 2017 ABSTRACT To report a single-institution experience of gamma evaluations with 2%/1 mm for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) delivered with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) technique, from January 2014 to January 2016. A total of 168 SABR VMAT plans were analyzed with a gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm, a threshold value of 10%, and a tolerance level of 90%. Of the 168 cases, four cases failed with 2%/1 mm. The average passing rate was 97.0% ± 2.5%. Three of the four failed cases showed passing rates higher than 90%, which was achieved by shifting the measuring device by 1 mm in the left-to-right or anterior-to-posterior directions. One failed case showed a passing rate higher than 90%, which was achieved by changing the threshold value from 10% to 5%, leading to an increase in the number of tested points from 26 to 51. Concerns regarding the high susceptibility of the gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm to setup errors of the measuring device are unnecessary based on our two-year experience, since only four cases failed with the 2%/1 mm from a total of 168 clinical cases. Therefore, the gamma criterion of 2%/1 mm could be successfully applied in the clinic with its high sensitivity to detect errors in VMAT plans.