No abstract

No abstract

PurposeGamma evaluation is the most commonly used technique for comparison of dose distributions for patient‐specific pretreatment quality assurance in radiation therapy. Alternative dose comparison techniques have been developed but not widely implemented. This study aimed to compare and evaluate the performance of several previously published alternatives to the gamma evaluation technique, by systematically evaluating a large number of patient‐specific quality assurance results.MethodsThe agreement indices (or pass rates) for global and local gamma evaluation, maximum allowed dose difference (MADD) and divide and conquer (D&C) techniques were calculated using a selection of acceptance criteria for 429 patient‐specific pretreatment quality assurance measurements. Regression analysis was used to quantify the similarity of behavior of each technique, to determine whether possible variations in sensitivity might be present.ResultsThe results demonstrated that the behavior of D&C gamma analysis and MADD box analysis differs from any other dose comparison techniques, whereas MADD gamma analysis exhibits similar performance to the standard global gamma analysis. Local gamma analysis had the least variation in behavior with criteria selection. Agreement indices calculated for 2%/2 mm and 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm were correlated for most comparison techniques.ConclusionRadiation oncology treatment centers looking to compare between different dose comparison techniques, criteria or lower dose thresholds may apply the results of this study to estimate the expected change in calculated agreement indices and possible variation in sensitivity to delivery dose errors.

No abstract

An increase in radiotherapy-induced secondary malignancies has led to recent developments in analytical modelling of out-of-field dose. These models must be validated against measurements, but currently available datasets are outdated or limited in scope. This study aimed to address these shortcomings by producing a large dataset of out-of-field dose profiles measured with modern equipment. A novel method was developed with the intention of allowing physicists in all clinics to perform these measurements themselves using commonly available dosimetry equipment. A standard 3D scanning water tank was used to collect 36 extended profiles. Each profile was measured in two sections, with the inner section measured with the beam directly incident on the tank, and the outer section with the beam incident on a water-equivalent phantom abutted next to the tank. The two sections were then stitched using a novel feature-matching approach. The profiles were compared against linac commissioning data and manually inspected for discontinuities in the overlap region. The dataset is presented as a publicly accessible comma separated variable file containing off-axis ratios at a range of off-axis distances. This dataset may be applied to the development and validation of analytical models of out-of-field dose. Additionally, it may be used to inform dose estimates to radiosensitive implants and anatomy. Physicists are encouraged to perform these out-of-field measurements in their own clinics and share their results with the community.