Literature DB >> 30269310

Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six linacs from the same vendor.

Chockkalingam Krishnappan1,2, Chandrasekaran Anu Radha3, Karunakaran Balaji3,4,5, Prasanna Kumar Mani3,6, Vendhan Subramani7, Velmurugan Thanigaimalai8, Madhan Kumar Gunasekaran9, Velayudham Ramasubramanian3.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric variation among six non-beam-matched Varian linacs using different techniques for the same plans. Six non-beam-matched Varian machines, comprising two Clinac iX, two 600 C/D (Unique), and two True Beam Tx photon 6 MV X-ray devices were acquired. Sixty patients with of head and neck (H&N; 30) and pelvic (30) treatment sites were chosen. For all 60 patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT) plans were generated for the Clinac iX-1 device; all plans were migrated to the remaining machines, using the eclipse treatment planning system without any modification. The dosimetric variation among the six machines for each target volume and organ at risk was recorded and analyzed. In H&N cases, the maximum variation among the six machines with 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT was 2.57%, 2.6%, and 2.6%, respectively. In pelvic cases, the maximum variation among the six machines with 3DCRT, IMRT, and VMAT was 2.2%, 1.95%, and 2.05%, respectively. Our overall results show that dosimetric variation, while interchanging the plans among the six machines at phantom and patient levels, remains within the limits of clinical acceptability. The noted variation was not correlated with any of these treatment techniques: 3DCRT, IMRT, or VMAT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dosimetric evaluation; Non-beam-matched linacs; Re-planning; Single-beam data; TPS commissioning

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30269310     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-018-0480-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  16 in total

1.  Comparative measurements on a series of accelerators by the same vendor.

Authors:  R J Watts
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Quantitative evaluation of a beam-matching procedure using one-dimensional gamma analysis.

Authors:  Jan Hrbacek; Tom Depuydt; An Nulens; Ans Swinnen; Frank Van den Heuvel
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  B Fraass; K Doppke; M Hunt; G Kutcher; G Starkschall; R Stern; J Van Dyke
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Analyzing the performance of the planning system by use of AAPM TG 119 test cases.

Authors:  L Nithya; N Arunai Nambi Raj; Sasikumar Rathinamuthu; Manish Bhushan Pandey
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2015-07-04

5.  Spectral differences in 6 MV beams with matched PDDs and the effect on chamber response.

Authors:  J E Lye; D J Butler; G Ramanathan; R D Franich
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Clinical significance of multi-leaf collimator positional errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  Mike Oliver; Isabelle Gagne; Karl Bush; Sergei Zavgorodni; Will Ansbacher; Wayne Beckham
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 6.280

7.  Independent verification of transferred delivery sinogram between two dosimetrically matched helical tomotherapy machines: a protocol for patient-specific quality assurance.

Authors:  Sridhar Yaddanapudi; Swetha Oddiraju; Vivian Rodriguez; Olga L Green; Daniel A Low; Dharanipathy Rangaraj; Sasa Mutic; S Murty Goddu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM.

Authors:  Indra J Das; Chee-Wai Cheng; Ronald J Watts; Anders Ahnesjö; John Gibbons; X Allen Li; Jessica Lowenstein; Raj K Mitra; William E Simon; Timothy C Zhu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Dosimetric analysis of beam-matching procedure of two similar linear accelerators.

Authors:  Janhavi R Bhangle; V K Sathiya Narayanan; Namitha K Kumar; R Vaitheeswaran
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2011-07

10.  Is the dose distribution distorted in IMRT and RapidArc treatment when patient plans are swapped across beam-matched machines?

Authors:  Chockkalingam Krishnappan; Chandrasekaran Anu Radha; Vendhan Subramani; Madhan Kumar Gunasekaran
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  1 in total

1.  Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators.

Authors:  Mohammed Ghazal; Lars Södergren; Mathias Westermark; Julia Söderström; Tobias Pommer
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-18       Impact factor: 2.102

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.