James R Kerns1, David S Followill1, Jessica Lowenstein2, Andrea Molineu2, Paola Alvarez2, Paige A Taylor2, Francesco C Stingo3, Stephen F Kry1. 1. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030; Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030; and Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center-Houston, Houston, Texas 77030. 2. Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030 and Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate data regarding linear accelerator (Linac) radiation characteristics are important for treatment planning system modeling as well as regular quality assurance of the machine. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) has measured the dosimetric characteristics of numerous machines through their on-site dosimetry review protocols. Photon data are presented and can be used as a secondary check of acquired values, as a means to verify commissioning a new machine, or in preparation for an IROC-H site visit. METHODS: Photon data from IROC-H on-site reviews from 2000 to 2014 were compiled and analyzed. Specifically, data from approximately 500 Varian machines were analyzed. Each dataset consisted of point measurements of several dosimetric parameters at various locations in a water phantom to assess the percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, multileaf collimator small field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The data were analyzed by energy and parameter, with similarly performing machine models being assimilated into classes. Common statistical metrics are presented for each machine class. Measurement data were compared against other reference data where applicable. RESULTS: Distributions of the parameter data were shown to be robust and derive from a student's t distribution. Based on statistical and clinical criteria, all machine models were able to be classified into two or three classes for each energy, except for 6 MV for which there were eight classes. Quantitative analysis of the measurements for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV photon beams is presented for each parameter; supplementary material has also been made available which contains further statistical information. CONCLUSIONS: IROC-H has collected numerous data on Varian Linacs and the results of photon measurements from the past 15 years are presented. The data can be used as a comparison check of a physicist's acquired values. Acquired values that are well outside the expected distribution should be verified by the physicist to identify whether the measurements are valid. Comparison of values to this reference data provides a redundant check to help prevent gross dosimetric treatment errors.
PURPOSE: Accurate data regarding linear accelerator (Linac) radiation characteristics are important for treatment planning system modeling as well as regular quality assurance of the machine. The Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston (IROC-H) has measured the dosimetric characteristics of numerous machines through their on-site dosimetry review protocols. Photon data are presented and can be used as a secondary check of acquired values, as a means to verify commissioning a new machine, or in preparation for an IROC-H site visit. METHODS: Photon data from IROC-H on-site reviews from 2000 to 2014 were compiled and analyzed. Specifically, data from approximately 500 Varian machines were analyzed. Each dataset consisted of point measurements of several dosimetric parameters at various locations in a water phantom to assess the percentage depth dose, jaw output factors, multileaf collimator small field output factors, off-axis factors, and wedge factors. The data were analyzed by energy and parameter, with similarly performing machine models being assimilated into classes. Common statistical metrics are presented for each machine class. Measurement data were compared against other reference data where applicable. RESULTS: Distributions of the parameter data were shown to be robust and derive from a student's t distribution. Based on statistical and clinical criteria, all machine models were able to be classified into two or three classes for each energy, except for 6 MV for which there were eight classes. Quantitative analysis of the measurements for 6, 10, 15, and 18 MV photon beams is presented for each parameter; supplementary material has also been made available which contains further statistical information. CONCLUSIONS: IROC-H has collected numerous data on Varian Linacs and the results of photon measurements from the past 15 years are presented. The data can be used as a comparison check of a physicist's acquired values. Acquired values that are well outside the expected distribution should be verified by the physicist to identify whether the measurements are valid. Comparison of values to this reference data provides a redundant check to help prevent gross dosimetric treatment errors.
Authors: Sang Hyun Cho; Oleg N Vassiliev; Seungsoo Lee; H Helen Liu; Geoffrey S Ibbott; Radhe Mohan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: C Glide-Hurst; M Bellon; R Foster; C Altunbas; M Speiser; M Altman; D Westerly; N Wen; B Zhao; M Miften; I J Chetty; T Solberg Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: David S Followill; Stephen F Kry; Lihong Qin; Jessica Lowenstein; Andrea Molineu; Paola Alvarez; Jose Francisco Aguirre; Geoffrey S Ibbott Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Sharbacha S Edward; Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; Peter A Balter; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: James R Kerns; Francesco Stingo; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Adam Melancon; Stephen F Kry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Stephen F Kry; Lainy Dromgoole; Paola Alvarez; Jessica Leif; Andrea Molineu; Paige Taylor; David S Followill Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: James R Kerns; David S Followill; Jessica Lowenstein; Andrea Molineu; Paola Alvarez; Paige A Taylor; Stephen F Kry Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; David S Followill; Rebecca M Howell; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Mallory C Glenn; Christine B Peterson; Rebecca M Howell; David S Followill; Julianne M Pollard-Larkin; Stephen F Kry Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-08-16 Impact factor: 4.071