Encrypted login | home

Program Information

Preliminary 2D and 3D Gamma Calculation Comparison Using PRESAGE

R Lafratta

R Lafratta*, J Yang , N Sahoo , S Tucker , D Followill , G Ibbott , UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX


SU-E-T-535 Sunday 3:00PM - 6:00PM Room: Exhibit Hall

To compare gamma calculations from 2D and 3D dosimetry measurements for phantom quality assurance.

An IROC Houston (RPC) head and neck phantom was irradiated with a 9 beam IMRT plan using two inserts: a TLD and film insert and a PRESAGE insert. Both inserts were irradiated 3 times. The film and PRESAGE doses were scaled to the TLD dose and 2D gamma calculations were made in the axial and sagittal planes bisecting the primary target. 3D gamma measurements were taken within the PRESAGE dosimeter volume. Gamma constraints of 3%/3mm distance to agreement (DTA), 5%/3mm DTA and 7%/4mm DTA were used in the study. The 3 irradiations for each insert were averaged together for comparison.

Film measurements for the 2D gamma showed 85% pixels passing at 3%/3mm in both planes. The 5%/3 mm constraint had 93% and 90% passing in the two planes. The 7%/4mm restraint resulted in 99% passing in both planes. The PRESAGE 2D gamma passed 66% and 61% of pixels in the both planes at 3%/3mm. At 5%/3mm 86% and 82% passed. For 7%/4mm, 94% of pixels passed in both planes. The 3D gamma resulted in a pass rate of 90% at 3%/3mm, 95% at 5%/3mm, and 99% at 7%/4mm.

2D gamma pass rates using film showed a higher pass rate than PRESAGE using the same criteria in the same planes. This may be due to poor 3D registration with the treatment plan compared to the 2D film registration system. The 3D gamma results had a higher pass rate (> 90% pass rate) possibly because it sampled many more pixels in noncritical volumes thus diluting the percent of pixels passing. 3D restraints should be more restrictive to be comparable to 2D results.

Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: Funding from NIH grant 5R01CA100835.

Contact Email: