Literature DB >> 31310678

Experience in commissioning the halcyon linac.

Tucker Netherton1, Yuting Li1, Song Gao1, Ann Klopp1, Peter Balter1, Laurence E Court1, Ryan Scheuermann2, Chris Kennedy2, Lei Dong2, James Metz2, Dimitris Mihailidis2, Clifton Ling3, Mu Young Lee3, Magdalena Constantin3, Stephen Thompson3, Juha Kauppinen3, Pekka Uusitalo3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This manuscript describes the experience of two institutions in commissioning the new HalcyonTM platform. Its purpose is to: (a) validate the pre-defined beam data, (b) compare relevant commissioning data acquired independently by two separate institutions, and (c) report on any significant differences in commissioning between the Halcyon linear accelerator and other medical linear accelerators.
METHODS: Extensive beam measurements, testing of mechanical and imaging systems, including the multi-leaf collimator (MLC), were performed at the two institutions independently. The results were compared with published recommendations as well. When changes in standard practice were necessitated by the design of the new system, the efficacy of such changes was evaluated as compared to published approaches (guidelines or vendor documentation).
RESULTS: Given the proper choice of detectors, good agreement was found between the respective experimental data and the treatment planning system calculations, and between independent measurements by the two institutions. MLC testing, MV imaging, and mechanical system showed unique characteristics that are different from the traditional C-arm linacs. Although the same methodologies and physics equipment can generally be used for commissioning the Halcyon, some adaptation of previous practices and development of new methods were also necessary.
CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that the vendor pre-loaded data agree well with the independent measured ones during the commission process. This verifies that a data validation instead of a full-data commissioning process may be a more efficient approach for the Halcyon. Measurement results could be used as a reference for future Halcyon users.
© 2019 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Keywords:  Halcyon; TPS verification; beam data verification; commissioning

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31310678     DOI: 10.1002/mp.13723

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  9 in total

1.  Beam data modeling of linear accelerators (linacs) through machine learning and its potential applications in fast and robust linac commissioning and quality assurance.

Authors:  Wei Zhao; Ishan Patil; Bin Han; Yong Yang; Lei Xing; Emil Schüler
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  Acceptance and verification of the Halcyon-Eclipse linear accelerator-treatment planning system without 3D water scanning system.

Authors:  Song Gao; Tucker Netherton; Mikhail A Chetvertkov; Yuting Li; Laurence E Court; William E Simon; Jie Shi; Peter A Balter
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  Unlocking a closed system: dosimetric commissioning of a ring gantry linear accelerator in a multivendor environment.

Authors:  Amarjit Saini; Chris Tichacek; William Johansson; Gage Redler; Geoffrey Zhang; Eduardo G Moros; Muqeem Qayyum; Vladimir Feygelman
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Validation of the preconfigured Varian Ethos Acuros XB Beam Model for treatment planning dose calculations: A dosimetric study.

Authors:  Yunfei Hu; Mikel Byrne; Ben Archibald-Heeren; Nick Collett; Guilin Liu; Trent Aland
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-10-17       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Dosimetric comparison between VMAT plans using the fast-rotating O-ring linac with dual-layer stacked MLC and helical tomotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Sang Gyu Ju; Yong Chan Ahn; Yeong-Bi Kim; Jin Man Kim; Dong Yeol Kwon; Byoung Suk Park; Kyungmi Yang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 4.309

6.  AAPM MEDICAL PHYSICS PRACTICE GUIDELINE 5.b: Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations-Megavoltage photon and electron beams.

Authors:  Mark W Geurts; Dustin J Jacqmin; Lindsay E Jones; Stephen F Kry; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Jared D Ohrt; Timothy Ritter; Jennifer B Smilowitz; Nicholai E Wingreen
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 2.243

7.  Commissioning of and preliminary experience with a new fully integrated computed tomography linac.

Authors:  Lei Yu; Jun Zhao; Zhen Zhang; Jiazhou Wang; Weigang Hu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-06-20       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Beam energy metrics for the acceptance and quality assurance of Halcyon linear accelerator.

Authors:  Song Gao; Mikhail A Chetvertkov; Bin Cai; Abhishek Dwivedi; Dimitris Mihailidis; Xenia Ray; Tucker Netherton; Laurence E Court; William E Simon; Peter A Balter
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Commissioning and quality assurance of HalcyonTM 2.0 linear accelerator.

Authors:  Pushpraj K Pathak; S K Vashisht; S Baby; P K Jithin; Y Jain; R Mahawar; V G G K Sharan
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2021-06-09
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.