Effects of spatial resolution and noise on gamma analysis for IMRT QA

Abstract

We investigated the sensitivity of the gamma index to two factors: the spatial resolution and the noise level in the measured dose distribution. We also examined how the choice of reference distribution and analysis software affect the sensitivity of gamma analysis to these two factors for quality assurance (QA) of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans. For ten clinical IMRT plans, the dose delivered to a transverse dose plane was measured with EDR2 radiographic film. To evaluate the effects of spatial resolution, each irradiated film was digitized using three different resolutions (71, 142, and 285 dpi). To evaluate the effects of image noise, 1% and 2% local Gaussian noise was added to the film images. Gamma analysis was performed using 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and two commercial software packages, OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro. Dose comparisons were performed with the treatment planning system (TPS)‐calculated dose as the reference, and then repeated with the film as the reference to evaluate how the choice of reference distribution affects the results of dose comparisons. When the TPS‐calculated dose was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values increased with both increasing resolution and noise. For 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, increasing the film image resolution by a factor of two and by a factor of four caused a median increase of 0.9% and 2.6%, respectively, in the percentage of pixels passing. Increasing the noise level in the film image resulted in a median increase in percentage of pixels passing of 5.5% for 1% added local Gaussian noise and 5.8% for 2% added noise. In contrast, when the film was designated as the reference distribution, the percentage of pixels passing decreased with increased film noise, while increased resolution had no significant effect on passing rates. Furthermore, the sensitivity of gamma analysis to noise and resolution differed between OmniPro I'mRT and DoseLab Pro, with DoseLab Pro being less sensitive to the effects of noise and resolution. Noise and high scanning resolution can artificially increase the percentage of pixels with passing gamma values in IMRT QA. Thus, these factors, if not properly taken into account, can potentially affect the results of IMRT QA by causing a plan that should be classified as failing to be falsely classified as passing. In designing IMRT QA protocols, it is important to be aware that gamma analysis is sensitive to these parameters.PACS number: 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.56.Fc

Validation and application of a fast Monte Carlo algorithm for assessing the clinical impact of approximations in analytical dose calculations for pencil beam scanning proton therapy

“…This could be because of CT uncertainty and setup error during measurements. As the statistical uncertainty inherent in MC calculations might potentially bias the gamma passing rate of MC as opposed to ADC, the noise level of MC results was controlled to be below 1% of the target dose — much smaller than the gamma criterion — to eliminate this concern.…”

A Swiss cheese error detection method for real-time EPID-based quality assurance and error prevention

“…However, as the tolerance levels of the SCED method are determined based on the set noise values partly extracted from the measurement analysis, its ability to detect errors depends on the chosen noise parameters. In addition, many studies 15,16 describe the decreasing sensitivity of the gamma evaluation method with increasing noise. Thus, both error detection methods are run multiple times for all test cases, with random noise parameters ranging from r = 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8%.…”

Isodose feature‐preserving voxelization (IFPV) for radiation therapy treatment planning

“…Another way to consolidate information of a treatment plan is to downsample the voxels through discarding voxels by, for instance, naïve random selection or pyramidal method. Despite the adverse impact of downsampling to the plan quality, naïve downsampling approaches have been commonly adopted for fast planning . Nonetheless, it is intuitively evident that the downsampling can lead to reduced resolution and cause a loss of planning accuracy.…”

“…Despite the adverse impact of downsampling to the plan quality, na€ ıve downsampling approaches have been commonly adopted for fast planning. [15][16][17][18][19][20] Nonetheless, it is intuitively evident that the downsampling can lead to reduced resolution and cause a loss of planning accuracy. Indeed, according to Matuszak,21 by universally downsampling the voxels, only a noticeable improvement of computational cost can be achieved at the cost of a deteriorated plan quality.…”