SU-E-T-231: Cross-Validation of 3D Gamma Comparison Tools

Authors

  • Alexander KM,

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jechel C,

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Pinter C,

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Salomons G,

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lasso A,

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Fichtinger G,

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Schreiner LJ

    1. Department of Physics, Engineering Physics, and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    2. School of Computing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    3. Department of Medical Physics, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario at Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    4. Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Purpose:

Moving the computational analysis for 3D gel dosimetry into the 3D Slicer (www.slicer.org) environment has made gel dosimetry more clinically accessible. To ensure accuracy, we cross-validate the 3D gamma comparison module in 3D Slicer with an independently developed algorithm using simulated and measured dose distributions.

Methods:

Two reference dose distributions were generated using the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system. The first distribution consisted of a four-field box irradiation delivered to a plastic water phantom and the second, a VMAT plan delivered to a gel dosimeter phantom. The first reference distribution was modified within Eclipse to create an evaluated dose distribution by spatially shifting one field by 3mm, increasing the monitor units of the second field, applying a dynamic wedge for the third field, and leaving the fourth field unchanged. The VMAT plan was delivered to a gel dosimeter and the evaluated dose in the gel was calculated from optical CT measurements. Results from the gamma comparison tool built into the SlicerRT toolbox were compared to results from our in-house gamma algorithm implemented in Matlab (via MatlabBridge in 3D Slicer). The effects of noise, resolution and the exchange of reference and evaluated designations on the gamma comparison were also examined.

Results:

Perfect agreement was found between the gamma results obtained using the SlicerRT tool and our Matlab implementation for both the four-field box and gel datasets. The behaviour of the SlicerRT comparison with respect to changes in noise, resolution and the role of the reference and evaluated dose distributions was consistent with previous findings.

Conclusion:

Two independently developed gamma comparison tools have been cross-validated and found to be identical. As we transition our gel dosimetry analysis from Matlab to 3D Slicer, this validation serves as an important test towards ensuring the consistency of dose comparisons using the 3D Slicer environment.

Ancillary