22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical commissioning and use of the Novalis Tx linear accelerator for SRS and SBRT

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose of this study was to perform comprehensive measurements and testing of a Novalis Tx linear accelerator, and to develop technical guidelines for commissioning from the time of acceptance testing to the first clinical treatment. The Novalis Tx (NTX) linear accelerator is equipped with, among other features, a high‐definition MLC (HD120 MLC) with 2.5 mm central leaves, a 6D robotic couch, an optical guidance positioning system, as well as X‐ray‐based image guidance tools to provide high accuracy radiation delivery for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiation therapy procedures. We have performed extensive tests for each of the components, and analyzed the clinical data collected in our clinic. We present technical guidelines in this report focusing on methods for: (1) efficient and accurate beam data collection for commissioning treatment planning systems, including small field output measurements conducted using a wide range of detectors; (2) commissioning tests for the HD120 MLC; (3) data collection for the baseline characteristics of the on‐board imager (OBI) and ExacTrac X‐ray (ETX) image guidance systems in conjunction with the 6D robotic couch; and (4) end‐to‐end testing of the entire clinical process. Established from our clinical experience thus far, recommendations are provided for accurate and efficient use of the OBI and ETX localization systems for intra‐ and extracranial treatment sites. Four results are presented. (1) Basic beam data measurements: Our measurements confirmed the necessity of using small detectors for small fields. Total scatter factors varied significantly (30% to approximately 62%) for small field measurements among detectors. Unshielded stereotactic field diode (SFD) overestimated dose by ~ 2 % for large field sizes. Ion chambers with active diameters of 6 mm suffered from significant volume averaging. The sharpest profile penumbra was observed for the SFD because of its small active diameter (0.6 mm). (2) MLC commissioning: Winston Lutz test, light/radiation field congruence, and Picket Fence tests were performed and were within criteria established by the relevant task group reports. The measured mean MLC transmission and dynamic leaf gap of 6 MV SRS beam were 1.17% and 0.36 mm, respectively. (3) Baseline characteristics of OBI and ETX: The isocenter localization errors in the left/right, posterior/anterior, and superior/inferior directions were, respectively, 0.2 ± 0.2 mm , 0.8 ± 0.2 mm , and 0.8 ± 0.4 mm for ETX, and 0.5 ± 0.7 mm , 0.6 ± 0.5 mm , and 0.0 ± 0.5 mm for OBI cone‐beam computed tomography. The registration angular discrepancy was 0.1 ± 0.2 ° , and the maximum robotic couch error was 0.2°. (4) End‐to‐end tests: The measured isocenter dose differences from the planned values were 0.8% and 0.4%, measured respectively by an ion chamber and film. The gamma pass rate, measured by EBT2 film, was 95% (3% DD and 1 mm DTA). Through a systematic series of quantitative commissioning experiments and end‐to‐end tests and our initial clinical experience, described in this report, we demonstrate that the NTX is a robust system, with the image guidance and MLC requirements to treat a wide variety of sites — in particular for highly accurate delivery of SRS and SBRT‐based treatments.

          PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.53.Ly, 87.59.‐e

          Related collections

          Most cited references85

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators.

          The task group (TG) for quality assurance of medical accelerators was constituted by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Science Council under the direction of the Radiation Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcome Improvement Subcommittee. The task group (TG-142) had two main charges. First to update, as needed, recommendations of Table II of the AAPM TG-40 report on quality assurance and second, to add recommendations for asymmetric jaws, multileaf collimation (MLC), and dynamic/virtual wedges. The TG accomplished the update to TG-40, specifying new test and tolerances, and has added recommendations for not only the new ancillary delivery technologies but also for imaging devices that are part of the linear accelerator. The imaging devices include x-ray imaging, photon portal imaging, and cone-beam CT. The TG report was designed to account for the types of treatments delivered with the particular machine. For example, machines that are used for radiosurgery treatments or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) require different tests and/or tolerances. There are specific recommendations for MLC quality assurance for machines performing IMRT. The report also gives recommendations as to action levels for the physicists to implement particular actions, whether they are inspection, scheduled action, or immediate and corrective action. The report is geared to be flexible for the physicist to customize the QA program depending on clinical utility. There are specific tables according to daily, monthly, and annual reviews, along with unique tables for wedge systems, MLC, and imaging checks. The report also gives specific recommendations regarding setup of a QA program by the physicist in regards to building a QA team, establishing procedures, training of personnel, documentation, and end-to-end system checks. The tabulated items of this report have been considerably expanded as compared with the original TG-40 report and the recommended tolerances accommodate differences in the intended use of the machine functionality (non-IMRT, IMRT, and stereotactic delivery).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance.

            Artifacts can seriously degrade the quality of computed tomographic (CT) images, sometimes to the point of making them diagnostically unusable. To optimize image quality, it is necessary to understand why artifacts occur and how they can be prevented or suppressed. CT artifacts originate from a range of sources. Physics-based artifacts result from the physical processes involved in the acquisition of CT data. Patient-based artifacts are caused by such factors as patient movement or the presence of metallic materials in or on the patient. Scanner-based artifacts result from imperfections in scanner function. Helical and multisection technique artifacts are produced by the image reconstruction process. Design features incorporated into modern CT scanners minimize some types of artifacts, and some can be partially corrected by the scanner software. However, in many instances, careful patient positioning and optimum selection of scanning parameters are the most important factors in avoiding CT artifacts. (c) RSNA, 2004.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jkim3@hfhs.org
                Journal
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                J Appl Clin Med Phys
                10.1002/(ISSN)1526-9914
                ACM2
                Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1526-9914
                10 May 2012
                May 2012
                : 13
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1002/acm2.2012.13.issue-3 )
                : 124-151
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Henry Ford Health System Detroit MI
                [ 2 ] Department of Radiation Oncology Duke University Medical Center Durham NC
                [ 3 ] Varian Surgical Sciences Varian Medical Systems, Inc. Palo Alto CA USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Corresponding author: Jinkoo Kim, Department of Radiation Oncology, Henry Ford Health System, 2799 W Grand Blvd., Detroit, MI, 48202, USA; phone: (313) 916‐2703; fax: (313) 916‐3264; email: jkim3@ 123456hfhs.org
                Article
                ACM20124
                10.1120/jacmp.v13i3.3729
                5716565
                22584170
                add833e2-04a8-400a-b24c-9a77f4f4a2f8
                © 2012 The Authors.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 04 August 2011
                : 25 January 2012
                Page count
                Figures: 13, Tables: 7, References: 97, Pages: 28, Words: 12635
                Categories
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Radiation Oncology Physics
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                acm20124
                May 2012
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.2.5 mode:remove_FC converted:16.11.2017

                novalis tx,commissioning,stereotactic radiosurgery,stereotactic body radiation therapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article