62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of the Machine Performance Check application for TrueBeam Linac

      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

          Background

          Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an application to verify geometry and beam performances of TrueBeam Linacs, through automated checks based on their kV-MV imaging systems. In this study, preliminary tests with MPC were analyzed using all photon beam energies of our TrueBeam, comparing whenever possible with external independent checks.

          Methods

          Data acquisition comprises a series of 39 images (12 with kV and 27 with MV detector) acquired at predefined positions without and with the IsoCal phantom in the beam, and with particular MLC pattern settings. MPC performs geometric and dosimetric checks. The geometric checks intend to test the treatment isocenter size and its coincidence with imaging devices, the positioning accuracy of the imaging systems, the collimator, the gantry, the jaws, the MLC leaves and the couch position. The dosimetric checks: refer to a reference MV image and give the beam output, uniformity and center change relative to the reference. MPC data were acquired during 10 repetitions on different consecutive days.

          Alternative independent checks were performed. Geometric: routine mechanical tests, Winston-Lutz test for treatment isocenter radius. Dosimetric: the 2D array StarCheck (PTW) was used just after the MPC data acquisition.

          Results

          Results were analyzed for 6, 10, 15 MV flattened, and 6, 10 MV FFF beams. Geometric checks: treatment isocenter was between 0.31 ± 0.01 mm and 0.42 ± 0.02 mm with MPC, compared to 0.27 ± 0.01 mm averaged on all energies with the Winston-Lutz test. Coincidence of kV and MV imaging isocenters was within 0.36 ± 0.0 and 0.43 ± 0.06 mm, respectively (0.4 ± 0.1 mm with external tests). Positioning accuracy of MLC was within 0.5 mm; accuracy of jaws was 0.04 ± 0.02, 0.10 ± 0.05, −1.01 ± 0.03, 0.92 ± 0.04 mm for X1, X2, Y1, Y2 jaws, respectively, with MPC. Dosimetric tests: the output stability relative to the baseline was in average 0.15 ± 0.07% for MPC to compare with 0.3 ± 0.2% with the independent measurement.

          Conclusions

          MPC proved to be a reliable, fast and easy to use method for checking the machine performances on both geometric and dosimetric aspects.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-015-0381-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • 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: not found
            • Article: not found

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

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

              A system for stereotactic radiosurgery with a linear accelerator.

              A small field irradiation technique to deliver high doses of single fraction photon radiation to small, precisely located volumes (0.5 to 8 cm3) within the brain has been developed. Our method uses a modified Brown-Roberts-Wells (BRS), CT-guided, stereotactic system and a 6 MV linear accelerator equipped with a special collimator (diameters of 12.5 mm to 30.0 mm projected to isocenter) located 23 cm from isocenter. Target localization via planar angiography has been added. Treatment consists of a series of arcing beams using both gantry and couch rotations. During treatment, the patient's head is immobilized independently of the radiotherapy couch and is precisely positioned without reference to room lasers or light field. A precise verification of alignment precedes each treatment. Extensive performance tests have shown that a target, localized by CT, can be irradiated with a positional accuracy of 2.4 mm in any direction with 95% confidence. If angiography is used for localization, the results are better. The dose 1.0 cm outside the target volume is less than 20% of the prescribed dose for a medium sized collimator.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alessandro.clivio@eoc.ch
                eugenio.vanettidepalma@eoc.ch
                steven.rose@varian.com
                giorgia.nicolini@eoc.ch
                mariafrancesca.belosi@eoc.ch
                luca.cozzi@humanitas.it
                christof.baltes@varian.com
                antonella.fogliata@humanitas.it
                Journal
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiat Oncol
                Radiation Oncology (London, England)
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-717X
                21 April 2015
                21 April 2015
                2015
                : 10
                : 97
                Affiliations
                [ ]IOSI, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Medical Physics Unit, Bellinzona, 6504 Switzerland
                [ ]Varian Medical Systems Imaging Laboratory, Baden-Dättwil, Switzerland
                [ ]Radiotherapy and Radiosurgery Department, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan-Rozzano, Italy
                Article
                381
                10.1186/s13014-015-0381-0
                4464869
                25896341
                f189b1e0-4586-484c-bd30-934842b4fa9b
                © Clivio et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 4 October 2014
                : 16 March 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                truebeam,quality assurance,machine performance
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                truebeam, quality assurance, machine performance

                Comments

                Comment on this article