PURPOSE: Pretreatment quality assurance data from four centers, members of the European TrueBeam council were analyzed with different verification devices to assess reliability of flattening filter free beam delivery for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) techniques. METHODS: TrueBeam(®) (Varian Medical System) is a new linear accelerator designed for delivering flattened, as well as flattening filter free beams. Pretreatment dosimetric validation of plan delivery was performed with different verification devices and responses to high dose rates were tested. Treatment planning was done in Eclipse planning system (PRO 8.9, AAA 8.9). γ evaluation was performed with (dose difference) = 3% and (distance to agreement) = 3 mm scoring the gamma agreement index (GAI, % of field area passing the test). Two hundred and twenty-four patients with 1-6 lesions in various anatomical regions and dose per fraction ranging from 1.8 Gy to 25 Gy were included in the study; 88 were treated with 6 MV flattening filter free (X6FFF) beam energy and 136 with 10 MV flattening filter free (X10FFF) beam. Gafchromic films in solid water, delta(4), arccheck, and matrixx phantom were used to verify the dose distributions. Additionally, point measurements were performed using a PinPoint chamber and a Farmer chamber. RESULTS: Dose calculation as well as dose delivery was equally accurate for IMRT and RA delivery (IMRT: GAI = 99.3% (±1.1); RA: GAI = 98.8% (±1.1) as well as for the two beams evaluated (X6FFF: GAI = 99.1% (±1.0); X10FFF: GAI = 98.8% (±1.2). Only small differences were found for the four verification devices. A point dose verification was performed on 52 cases, obtaining a dose deviation of 0.34%. The GAI variations with number of monitor units were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The TrueBeam FFF modality, analyzed with a variety of verification devices and planned with Eclipse planning system is dosimetrically accurate (within the specified limits 3 mm/3%) for both X6FFF and X10FFF beam energy.
PURPOSE: Pretreatment quality assurance data from four centers, members of the European TrueBeam council were analyzed with different verification devices to assess reliability of flattening filter free beam delivery for intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) techniques. METHODS: TrueBeam(®) (Varian Medical System) is a new linear accelerator designed for delivering flattened, as well as flattening filter free beams. Pretreatment dosimetric validation of plan delivery was performed with different verification devices and responses to high dose rates were tested. Treatment planning was done in Eclipse planning system (PRO 8.9, AAA 8.9). γ evaluation was performed with (dose difference) = 3% and (distance to agreement) = 3 mm scoring the gamma agreement index (GAI, % of field area passing the test). Two hundred and twenty-four patients with 1-6 lesions in various anatomical regions and dose per fraction ranging from 1.8 Gy to 25 Gy were included in the study; 88 were treated with 6 MV flattening filter free (X6FFF) beam energy and 136 with 10 MV flattening filter free (X10FFF) beam. Gafchromic films in solid water, delta(4), arccheck, and matrixx phantom were used to verify the dose distributions. Additionally, point measurements were performed using a PinPoint chamber and a Farmer chamber. RESULTS: Dose calculation as well as dose delivery was equally accurate for IMRT and RA delivery (IMRT: GAI = 99.3% (±1.1); RA: GAI = 98.8% (±1.1) as well as for the two beams evaluated (X6FFF: GAI = 99.1% (±1.0); X10FFF: GAI = 98.8% (±1.2). Only small differences were found for the four verification devices. A point dose verification was performed on 52 cases, obtaining a dose deviation of 0.34%. The GAI variations with number of monitor units were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The TrueBeam FFF modality, analyzed with a variety of verification devices and planned with Eclipse planning system is dosimetrically accurate (within the specified limits 3 mm/3%) for both X6FFF and X10FFF beam energy.
Authors: H-J Shin; J H Song; J-Y Jung; Y-K Kwak; C S Kay; Y-N Kang; B O Choi; H S Jang; S H Son Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jin Beom Chung; Sang Won Kang; Keun Yong Eom; Changhoon Song; Kyoung Sik Choi; Tae Suk Suh Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Ying Xiao; Stephen F Kry; Richard Popple; Ellen Yorke; Niko Papanikolaou; Sotirios Stathakis; Ping Xia; Saiful Huq; John Bayouth; James Galvin; Fang-Fang Yin Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2015-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102