Beyond Gamma Analysis: An Accessibility-oriented Framework for Comparative Evaluation of Patient-specific Radiotherapy Quality Assurance
Abstract
Background: Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in radiotherapy is traditionally performed using measurement-based systems that require dedicated hardware, machine time, and manpower. Although software-based QA approaches have emerged as efficient alternatives, their comparative accessibility and operational performance remain insufficiently investigated. This study evaluated conventional and software-based QA methodologies using integrated dosimetric, temporal, and economic metrics. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 clinically approved treatment plans, including head-and-neck, pelvis, and lung volumetric modulated arc therapy/stereotactic body radiotherapy cases, were retrospectively analysed. All plans were generated in Eclipse TPS v15.6 and evaluated using ArcCHECK phantom-based QA, electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based QA, and log file-based QA. Gamma analysis was performed using 3%/2 mm criteria with a 10% dose threshold. Workflow time and relative cost burden were recorded for each method. Three composite indices were defined: QA Cost Efficiency Index (QCEI), QA Efficiency Index (QEI), and QA Accessibility Index (QAI). Statistical comparisons were performed using paired analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results: All QA methods achieved clinically acceptable gamma passing rates. Log file-based QA demonstrated the highest median gamma passing rate; however, the absolute differences between methodologies were small, and all approaches exceeded the predefined clinical acceptance criterion (≥95%). ArcCHECK showed the greatest workflow time and cost burden, whereas log file-based QA demonstrated the highest QCEI, QEI, and QAI values. EPID-based QA showed intermediate performance. All pairwise differences in accessibility metrics were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Software-based QA approaches significantly improved operational efficiency and accessibility while maintaining clinically acceptable dosimetric agreement. However, further prospective, multi-institutional validation of the proposed accessibility framework is warranted.
Related
- Using artificial intelligence for clinical trial quality assurance in a multi-institutional neurovascular-sparing prostate radiotherapy trial
- Comparative Radiobiological Evaluation of Radiotherapy Techniques Using Equivalent Uniform Dose, Tumor Control Probability, and Normal Tissue Complication Probability in Postmastectomy Breast Cancer
- Comparative Dosimetric Evaluation of Tomotherapy with a 1-cm Field Width versus Volumetric-modulated Arc Therapy for Whole-brain Radiotherapy with Hippocampal Avoidance
- Six-year data from three magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy systems demonstrate long-term stability of linear accelerator quality assurance
- Radiation therapy quality assurance (RT QA) of adjuvant fractionated radiotherapy for WHO grade 2 atypical meningioma in the ROAM/EORTC1308 trial
BibTeX
@article{vikram2026beyond,
title = {{Beyond Gamma Analysis: An Accessibility-oriented Framework for Comparative Evaluation of Patient-specific Radiotherapy Quality Assurance}},
author = {Vikram and Raj Pal Singh and Manindra Bhushan},
journal = {Journal of Medical Physics},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
doi = {10.4103/jmp.jmp_115_26},
url = {https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_115_26},
note = {CC BY-NC-SA},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Beyond Gamma Analysis: An Accessibility-oriented Framework for Comparative Evaluation of Patient-specific Radiotherapy Quality Assurance
AU - Vikram
AU - Raj Pal Singh
AU - Manindra Bhushan
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/01
JO - Journal of Medical Physics
DO - 10.4103/jmp.jmp_115_26
UR - https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.jmp_115_26
AB - Background: Patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in radiotherapy is traditionally performed using measurement-based systems that require dedicated hardware, machine time, and manpower. Although software-based QA approaches have emerged as efficient alternatives, their comparative accessibility and operational performance remain insufficiently investigated. This study evaluated conventional and software-based QA methodologies using integrated dosimetric, temporal, and economic metrics. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 clinically approved treatment plans, including head-and-neck, pelvis, and lung volumetric modulated arc therapy/stereotactic body radiotherapy cases, were retrospectively analysed. All plans were generated in Eclipse TPS v15.6 and evaluated using ArcCHECK phantom-based QA, electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based QA, and log file-based QA. Gamma analysis was performed using 3%/2 mm criteria with a 10% dose threshold. Workflow time and relative cost burden were recorded for each method. Three composite indices were defined: QA Cost Efficiency Index (QCEI), QA Efficiency Index (QEI), and QA Accessibility Index (QAI). Statistical comparisons were performed using paired analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results: All QA methods achieved clinically acceptable gamma passing rates. Log file-based QA demonstrated the highest median gamma passing rate; however, the absolute differences between methodologies were small, and all approaches exceeded the predefined clinical acceptance criterion (≥95%). ArcCHECK showed the greatest workflow time and cost burden, whereas log file-based QA demonstrated the highest QCEI, QEI, and QAI values. EPID-based QA showed intermediate performance. All pairwise differences in accessibility metrics were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Software-based QA approaches significantly improved operational efficiency and accessibility while maintaining clinically acceptable dosimetric agreement. However, further prospective, multi-institutional validation of the proposed accessibility framework is warranted.
SN - 0971-6203
SN - 1998-3913
ER -