The sensitivity of ArcCHECK‐based gamma analysis to manufactured errors in helical tomotherapy radiation delivery

Abstract

Three‐dimensional measurement arrays are an efficient means of acquiring a distribution of data for patient plan delivery QA. However, the tie between plan integrity and traditional gamma‐based analysis of these data are not clear. This study explores the sensitivity of such analysis by creating errors in Helical Tomotherapy delivery and measuring the passing rates with an ArcCHECK cylindrical diode array. Errors were introduced in each of the couch speed, leaf open time, and gantry starting position in increasing magnitude while the resulting gamma passing rates were tabulated. The error size required to degrade the gamma passing rate to 90% or below was on average a 3% change in couch speed, 5° in gantry synchronization, or a 5 ms in leaf closing speed for a 3%/3 mm Van Dyk gamma analysis. This varied with plan type, with prostate plans exhibiting less sensitivity than head and neck plans and with gamma analysis criteria, but in all cases the error magnitudes were large compared to actual machine tolerances. These findings suggest that the sensitivity of ArcCHECK‐based gamma analysis to single‐mode errors in tomotherapy plans is dependent upon plan and analysis type and at traditional passing thresholds unable to detect small defects in the plan.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Gamma index comparison of three VMAT QA systems and evaluation of their sensitivity to delivery errors

“…This is probably due to the spherical shape of the prostate. Templeton et al [19] also found that prostate plans exhibited less sensitivity than HN plans for Tomotherapy treatments. For MLC errors, we found sensitivity disease independent.…”

IMRT QA: Selecting gamma criteria based on error detection sensitivity

“…Numerous studies have reported clinically observed gamma passing rates and proposed gamma criteria and tolerance limits for their clinics, [8][9][10][11][12][13] while others have demonstrated the utility of process control charts for selecting more meaningful IMRT QA actions levels. 14 More recent studies have reported on the insensitivity of commonly used criteria (namely, 3%/3 mm) to detect clinically significant errors for different measurement scenarios, [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] however, most do not identify more appropriate gamma criteria for use. A study by Kry et al found that an institution's reported IMRT QA results were not able to predict whether that institution would pass or fail the Houston Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) credentialing process.…”

A clinically relevant IMRT QA workflow: Design and validation

“…Intensity‐modulated radiation therapy quality assurance (IMRT QA) has been the topic of much debate in the past few years. It has been known for some time that basing IMRT QA on overall gamma analysis” using thresholds such as 90% of points passing criteria of 3%/3 mm 2 is insufficient for identifying subpar plans . Ford et al .…”