Literature DB >> 33070456

Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators.

Mohammed Ghazal1, Lars Södergren1, Mathias Westermark1, Julia Söderström1, Tobias Pommer1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate and improve the level of equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators (linacs) in energy-, dosimetric leaf gap- (DLG) and jaw calibration.
METHODS: Eight linacs with four photon energies: 6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF, and 15 MV, and three electron energies (on two linacs): 6, 9, and 12 MeV were commisioned and beam-matched. Initially, symmetry of lateral profiles was calibrated for maximum field size. Energy-matching was then performed for photons by adjusting diagonal profiles at maximum field size and depth of maximum dose to coincide with the reference linac, and for electrons by matching the range at percentage depth of ionization of 90%, 80%, and 50%. Calibration of DLG was performed for 6 MV and evaluated among the linacs. The relationship between DLG and the Gap value was investigated. A method using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was developed and implemented for jaw calibration.
RESULTS: Symmetry calibration for photons (electrons) was within 1% (0.7%), further improving the vendor's acceptance criteria. Photon and electron energy-matching was within 0.5% and 0.1 mm, respectively. Calibration of DLG was within 0.032 mm among the linacs and utilizing the relationship between DLG and the Gap value resulted in an empirical calibration method which was implemented to simplify DLG adjustment. Using EPID-based method of calibration, evaluation of the jaw-positioning among the linacs for 30 cm × 30 cm field size was within 0.4 mm and in the junction area within 0.2 mm. Dose delivery error of VMAT-plans were at least 99.2% gamma pass rate (1%, 1 mm).
CONCLUSIONS: High level of equivalency, beyond clinically accepted criteria, of TrueBeam linacs could be achieved which reduced dose delivery systematic errors and increased confidence in interchanging patients among linacs.
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DLG and jaw calibration; beam-matching; energy-matching

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33070456      PMCID: PMC7769408          DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys        ISSN: 1526-9914            Impact factor:   2.102


  22 in total

1.  The effect of independent collimator misalignment on the dosimetry of abutted half-beam blocked fields for the treatment of head and neck cancer.

Authors:  D I Rosenthal; J McDonough; A Kassaee
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  Biological consequences of MLC calibration errors in IMRT delivery and QA.

Authors:  Vitali Moiseenko; Vincent Lapointe; Kerry James; Lingshu Yin; Mitchell Liu; Todd Pawlicki
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  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

4.  A mathematical approach to beam matching.

Authors:  B Sarkar; A Manikandan; M Nandy; M S Gossman; C S Sureka; A Ray; N Sujatha
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators.

Authors:  David Sjöström; Ulf Bjelkengren; Wiviann Ottosson; Claus F Behrens
Journal:  Acta Oncol       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.089

6.  Measurement of changes in linear accelerator photon energy through flatness variation using an ion chamber array.

Authors:  Song Gao; Peter A Balter; Mark Rose; William E Simon
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Matching the 6-MV photon beam characteristics of two dissimilar linear accelerators.

Authors:  M G Marshall
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Quantification of beam steering with an ionization chamber array.

Authors:  Song Gao; Peter A Balter; Benjamin Tran; Mark Rose; William E Simon
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-03-25       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Assessment of beam-matched linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning.

Authors:  Zhengzheng Xu; Gregory Warrell; Soyoung Lee; Valdir Colussi; Yiran Zheng; Rodney Ellis; Mitchell Machtay; Tarun Podder
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Do the representative beam data for TrueBeam linear accelerators represent average data?

Authors:  Yoshihiro Tanaka; Hirokazu Mizuno; Yuichi Akino; Masaru Isono; Norimasa Masai; Toshijiro Yamamoto
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2019-01-13       Impact factor: 2.102

View more
  2 in total

1.  Golden beam data provided by linear accelerator manufacturers should be used in the commissioning of treatment planning systems.

Authors:  Yousif A M Yousif; Jerome Gastaldo; Clive Baldock
Journal:  Phys Eng Sci Med       Date:  2022-06

2.  Transferability of patients for radiation treatment between unmatched machines.

Authors:  Joseph J Foy; Serpil K Dogan; Poonam Yadav; Bharat B Mittal; Indra J Das
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-01-30       Impact factor: 2.102

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.