{"title":"Quantifying radiotherapy beam quality: an analysis using gamma passing rates.","authors":"Xiang Gao, Yipeng He, Yanjuan Yu, Sijia Chen, Guanglu Gao, Lirong Fu, Liwan Shi, Zheng Kang","doi":"10.1088/2057-1976/adb291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Purpose</i>. PDD and profile curves play a crucial role in analyzing the beam quality and energy stability of accelerators. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of GPR in machine QA and compare it with traditional methods for analyzing dose outputs.<i>Methods</i>. GPRs were employed to assess the quality of radiation beams by comparing 1D and 2D Profile metrics and PDD data against commissioning data. The data used were obtained from the ASCII data files derived from the water tank. GPRs were calculated for all plots with a lower percentage dose cutoff of 10%. The local GPRs and dose influence for the 2D PDD metrics and dose influence were calculated for an open field 10 × 10 cm<sup>2</sup>photon beam at SSD = 100 cm. In both 1D and 2D GPRs analyses, criterion of 1%/1 mm was adopted, as this approach allows for the capture of more subtle variations in the data. To substantiate the viability of the study, a comparative analysis was conducted by comparing the outcomes of the gamma analysis with those derived from traditional methods, such as manual machine quality assurance checks.<i>Results</i>. GPRs demonstrated a superior capability for comprehensive data analysis compared to traditional methods. For the 1D curves, the passing rates (<i>γ</i>≤ 1) are 96.19%, 100%, and 93.46%, respectively. With respect to the 2D dose influence, the PDD image passing rate was 99.57%, and significant dose differences were observed at the four corners of the open field, indicating areas that require further investigation.<i>Conclusions</i>. Compared to traditional methods, GPRs are more sensitive to subtle changes in the data, providing valuable insights into the accelerator beam status.</p>","PeriodicalId":8896,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/adb291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose. PDD and profile curves play a crucial role in analyzing the beam quality and energy stability of accelerators. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of GPR in machine QA and compare it with traditional methods for analyzing dose outputs.Methods. GPRs were employed to assess the quality of radiation beams by comparing 1D and 2D Profile metrics and PDD data against commissioning data. The data used were obtained from the ASCII data files derived from the water tank. GPRs were calculated for all plots with a lower percentage dose cutoff of 10%. The local GPRs and dose influence for the 2D PDD metrics and dose influence were calculated for an open field 10 × 10 cm2photon beam at SSD = 100 cm. In both 1D and 2D GPRs analyses, criterion of 1%/1 mm was adopted, as this approach allows for the capture of more subtle variations in the data. To substantiate the viability of the study, a comparative analysis was conducted by comparing the outcomes of the gamma analysis with those derived from traditional methods, such as manual machine quality assurance checks.Results. GPRs demonstrated a superior capability for comprehensive data analysis compared to traditional methods. For the 1D curves, the passing rates (γ≤ 1) are 96.19%, 100%, and 93.46%, respectively. With respect to the 2D dose influence, the PDD image passing rate was 99.57%, and significant dose differences were observed at the four corners of the open field, indicating areas that require further investigation.Conclusions. Compared to traditional methods, GPRs are more sensitive to subtle changes in the data, providing valuable insights into the accelerator beam status.
期刊介绍:
BPEX is an inclusive, international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to publishing new research on any application of physics and/or engineering in medicine and/or biology. Characterized by a broad geographical coverage and a fast-track peer-review process, relevant topics include all aspects of biophysics, medical physics and biomedical engineering. Papers that are almost entirely clinical or biological in their focus are not suitable. The journal has an emphasis on publishing interdisciplinary work and bringing research fields together, encompassing experimental, theoretical and computational work.