Dataset Information

IMRT and RapidArc commissioning of a TrueBeam linear accelerator using TG-119 protocol cases.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall accuracy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc delivery using both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) modalities based on test cases developed by AAPM Task Group 119. Institutional confidence limits (CLs) were established as the baseline for patient specific treatment plan quality assurance (QA). The effects of gantry range, gantry speed, leaf speed, dose rate, as well as the capability to capture intentional errors, were evaluated by measuring a series of Picket Fence (PF) tests using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and EBT3 films. Both IMRT and RapidArc plans were created in a Solid Water phantom (30 × 30 × 15 cm3) for the TG-119 test cases representative of normal clinical treatment sites for all five photon energies (6X, 10X, 15X, 6X-FFF, 10X-FFF) and the Exact IGRT couch was included in the dose calculation. One high-dose point in the PTV and one low-dose point in the avoidance structure were measured with an ion chamber in each case for each energy. Similarly, two GAFCHROMIC EBT3 films were placed in the coronal planes to measure planar dose distributions in both high- and low-dose regions. The confidence limit was set to have 95% of the measured data fall within the tolerance. The mean of the absolute dose deviation for variable dose rate and gantry speed during RapidArc delivery was within 0.5% for all energies. The corresponding results for leaf speed tests were all within 0.4%. The combinations of dynamic leaf gap (DLG) and MLC transmission factor were optimized based on the ion chamber measurement results of RapidArc delivery for each energy. The average 95% CLs for the high-dose point in the PTV were 0.030 ± 0.007 (range, 0.022-0.038) for the IMRT plans and 0.029 ± 0.011 (range, 0.016-0.043) for the RapidArc plans. For low-point dose in the avoidance structures, the CLs were 0.029 ± 0.006 (range, 0.024-0.039) for the IMRT plans and 0.027 ± 0.013 (range, 0.017-0.047) for the RapidArc plans. The average 95% CLs using 3%/3 mm gamma criteria in the high-dose region were 5.9 ± 2.7 (range, 1.4-8.6) and 3.9 ± 2.9 (range, 1.5-8.8) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. The average 95% CLs in the low-dose region were 5.3 ± 2.6 (range, 1.2-7.4) and 3.7 ± 2.8 (range, 1.8-8.3) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. Based on ion chamber, as well as film measurements, we have established CLs values to ensure the high precision of IMRT and RapidArc delivery for both FF and FFF modalities.

SUBMITTER: Wen N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5711094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study evaluates the volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) dosimetric comparison between Halcyon ring gantry and TrueBeam c-arm linear accelerators for craniospinal irradiation (CSI) of the neuro-axis. 25 patients, who received treatment for medulloblastoma and primitive neuro-ectodermal tumors between 2018 and 2021, were planned for VMAT in True Beam (TB), and Halcyon (HAL) linear accelerators using 6 MV unflattened (FFF) photon beams (HALFFF and TBFFF). Dose-volume statistics for the target and organs at risk (OARs) and the total number of monitoring units (MUs) in the treatment plans were compared which included dose received by 95% PTV volume (V95%), volume receiving ≥ 107% dose, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (PI), MU and dose spillage (D10%, D30%, D50%, D70%, D90%). In all 26 OARs were considered of which five were serial and the remaining were parallel structures. For the former, the dose received by 0.2 cm3, volume = D0.2 cm3) were evaluated and for the latter mean dose were evaluated. Both arms were statistically compared with paired sample t-test with a significant value of ≤ 0.05. 11 patients received treatment with the Halcyon and the rest 14 in the TrueBeam C-arm linear accelerator. Patients in the low- and intermediate-risk category (n = 13) received 23.4 Gy in 13 fractions. The remaining patients were in the high-risk category and received 35 Gy in 21 fractions or 36 Gy in 20 fractions. For HALFFF and TBFFF, PTVV95% were 97.5 ± 0.8% and 97.4 ± 0.9% respectively (p = 0.371) while the V107% were 0.6 ± 0.4% and 0.5 ± 0.5 respectively (p = 0.504). However, the number of monitoring units showed statistical significance (p < 0.001) with values of 1331.9 ± 243.4 MU and 1089 ± 206.7 MU respectively for the HAL and TB plans. The differences in spillage dose were also statistically significant, favouring HAL plans at D30% (p = 0.002), D50% (p < 0.001), D70% (p = 0.039), and D90% (p = 0.01) level except for D10% (p = 0.090). Conformity index also showed statistical significance with PI_HAL = 0.9 ± 0.02 and PI_TB = 0.89 ± 0.03 (p = 0.029). For 10 of the 21 parallel structures, the mean dose differences were statistically significant in favouring of HAL plans. Halcyon based VMAT CSI plans are dosimetrically superior in terms of organ dose, especially for the large organs, and offer lower spillage doses than the TrueBeam plans. Plans generated by both linear accelerators are suitable for the patients' treatments.

Project description:PurposeTo better meet clinical needs and facilitate optimal treatment planning, we added two new electron energy beams (7 and 11 MeV) to two Varian TrueBeam linacs.MethodsWe worked with the vendor to create two additional customized electron energies without hardware modifications. For each beam, we set the bending magnet current and then optimized other beam-specific parameters to achieve depths of 50% ionization (I50 ) of 2.9 cm for 7 MeV and 4.2 cm for the 11 MeV beam with the 15 × 15 cm2 cone at 100 cm source-to-surface distance (SSD) by using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) with a double-wedge (DW) phantom. Beams were steered and balanced to optimize symmetry with the ICP. After all parameters were set, full commissioning was done including measuring beam profiles, percent depth doses (PDDs), output factors (OFs) at standard, and extended SSDs. Measured data were compared between the two linacs and against the values calculated by our RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) following Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) guidelines.ResultsThe I50 values initially determined with the ICP/DW agreed with those from a PDD-scanned in-water phantom within 0.2 mm for the 7 and 11 MeV on both linacs. Comparison of the beam characteristics from the two linacs indicated that flatness and symmetry agreed within 0.4%, and point-by-point differences in PDD were within 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 7 MeV and 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 11 MeV. The OF ratios between the two linacs were 1.000 ± 0.007 for the 7 MeV and 1.004 ± 0.007 for the 11 MeV. Agreement between TPS-calculated outputs and measurements were -0.1% ± 1.0% for the 7 MeV and 0.2% ± 0.8% for the 11 MeV. All other parameters met the MPPG 5.a's 3%/3-mm criteria.ConclusionWe were able to add two new beam energies with no hardware modifications. Tuning of the new beams was facilitated by the ICP/DW system allowing us to have the procedures done in a few hours and achieve highly consistent results across two linacs. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc.

Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to develop and test a set of illustrated instructions for effective training for mechanical quality assurance (QA) of medical linear accelerators (linac).MethodsIllustrated instructions were created for mechanical QA and underwent several steps of review, testing, and refinement. Eleven testers with no recent QA experience were then recruited from our radiotherapy department (one student, two computational scientists, and eight dosimetrists). This group was selected because they have experience of radiation therapy but no preconceived ideas about how to do QA. The following parameters were progressively decalibrated on a Varian C-series linac: Group A = gantry angle, ceiling laser position, X1 jaw position, couch longitudinal position, physical graticule position (five testers); Group B = Group A + wall laser position, couch lateral and vertical position, collimator angle (three testers); Group C = Group B + couch angle, wall laser angle, and optical distance indicator (three testers). Testers were taught how to use the linac and then used the instructions to try to identify these errors. An experienced physicist observed each session, giving support on machine operation as necessary.ResultsTesters were able to follow the instructions. They determined gantry, collimator, and couch angle errors within 0.4°, 0.3°, and 0.9° of the actual changed values, respectively. Laser positions were determined within 1 mm and jaw positions within 2 mm. Couch position errors were determined within 2 mm and 3 mm for lateral/longitudinal and vertical errors, respectively. Accessory-positioning errors were determined within 1 mm. Optical distance indicator errors were determined within 2 mm when comparing with distance sticks and 6 mm when using blocks, indicating that distance sticks should be the preferred approach for inexperienced staff.ConclusionsInexperienced users were able to follow these instructions and catch errors within the criteria suggested by AAPM TG-142 for linacs used for intensity-modulated radiation therapy. These instructions are, therefore, suitable for QA training.

Project description:The purpose of this study is to characterize the dosimetric properties and accuracy of a novel treatment platform (Edge radiosurgery system) for localizing and treating patients with frameless, image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Initial measurements of various components of the system, such as a comprehensive assessment of the dosimetric properties of the flattening filter-free (FFF) beams for both high definition (HD120) MLC and conical cone-based treatment, positioning accuracy and beam attenuation of a six degree of freedom (6DoF) couch, treatment head leakage test, and integrated end-to-end accuracy tests, have been performed. The end-to-end test of the system was performed by CT imaging a phantom and registering hidden targets on the treatment couch to determine the localization accuracy of the optical surface monitoring system (OSMS), cone-beam CT (CBCT), and MV imaging systems, as well as the radiation isocenter targeting accuracy. The deviations between the percent depth-dose curves acquired on the new linac-based system (Edge), and the previously published machine with FFF beams (TrueBeam) beyond D(max) were within 1.0% for both energies. The maximum deviation of output factors between the Edge and TrueBeam was 1.6%. The optimized dosimetric leaf gap values, which were fitted using Eclipse dose calculations and measurements based on representative spine radiosurgery plans, were 0.700 mm and 1.000 mm, respectively. For the conical cones, 6X FFF has sharper penumbra ranging from 1.2-1.8 mm (80%-20%) and 1.9-3.8 mm (90%-10%) relative to 10X FFF, which has 1.2-2.2mm and 2.3-5.1mm, respectively. The relative attenuation measurements of the couch for PA, PA (rails-in), oblique, oblique (rails-out), oblique (rails-in) were: -2.0%, -2.5%, -15.6%, -2.5%, -5.0% for 6X FFF and -1.4%, -1.5%, -12.2%, -2.5%, -5.0% for 10X FFF, respectively, with a slight decrease in attenuation versus field size. The systematic deviation between the OSMS and CBCT was -0.4 ± 0.2 mm, 0.1± 0.3mm, and 0.0 ± 0.1 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. The mean values and standard deviations of the average deviation and maximum deviation of the daily Winston-Lutz tests over three months are 0.20 ± 0.03 mm and 0.66 ± 0.18 mm, respectively. Initial testing of this novel system demonstrates the technology to be highly accurate and suitable for frameless, linac-based SRS and SBRT treatment.

Dataset Information

IMRT and RapidArc commissioning of a TrueBeam linear accelerator using TG-119 protocol cases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets