Literature DB >> 33452738

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

Amarjit Saini1, Chris Tichacek1, William Johansson1, Gage Redler1, Geoffrey Zhang1, Eduardo G Moros1, Muqeem Qayyum2, Vladimir Feygelman1.   

Abstract

The Halcyon™ platform is self-contained, combining a treatment planning (Eclipse) system TPS) with information management and radiation delivery components. The standard TPS beam model is configured and locked down by the vendor. A portal dosimetry-based system for patient-specific QA (PSQA) is also included. While ensuring consistency across the user base, this closed model may not be optimal for every department. We set out to commission independent TPS (RayStation 9B, RaySearch Laboratories) and PSQA (PerFraction, Sun Nuclear Corp.) systems for use with the Halcyon linac. The output factors and PDDs for very small fields (0.5 × 0.5 cm2 ) were collected to augment the standard Varian dataset. The MLC leaf-end parameters were estimated based on the various static and dynamic tests with simple model fields and honed by minimizing the mean and standard deviation of dose difference between the ion chamber measurements and RayStation Monte Carlo calculations for 15 VMAT and IMRT test plans. Two chamber measurements were taken per plan, in the high (isocenter) and lower dose regions. The ratio of low to high doses ranged from 0.4 to 0.8. All percent dose differences were expressed relative to the local dose. The mean error was 0.0 ± 1.1% (TG119-style confidence limit ± 2%). Gamma analysis with the helical diode array using the standard 3%Global/2mm criteria resulted in the average passing rate of 99.3 ± 0.5% (confidence limit 98.3%-100%). The average local dose error for all detectors across all plans was 0.2% ± 5.3%. The ion chamber results compared favorably with our recalculation with Eclipse and PerFraction, as well as with several published Eclipse reports. Dose distribution gamma analysis comparisons between RayStation and PerFraction with 2%Local/2mm criteria yielded an average passing rate of 98.5% ± 0.8% (confidence limit 96.9%-100%). It is feasible to use the Halcyon accelerator with independent planning and verification systems without sacrificing dosimetric accuracy.
© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IMRT/VMAT verification; MLC modeling; TPS beam modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33452738      PMCID: PMC7882119          DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13116

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


  39 in total

1.  Properties of unflattened photon beams shaped by a multileaf collimator.

Authors:  Falk Pönisch; Uwe Titt; Oleg N Vassiliev; Stephen F Kry; Radhe Mohan
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy.

Authors:  T LoSasso; C S Chui; C C Ling
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  On the use of the MLC dosimetric leaf gap as a quality control tool for accurate dynamic IMRT delivery.

Authors:  Xiangyang Mei; Ian Nygren; J Eduardo Villarreal-Barajas
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Real-time dose computation: GPU-accelerated source modeling and superposition/convolution.

Authors:  Robert Jacques; John Wong; Russell Taylor; Todd McNutt
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Characterization of the Exradin W1 scintillator for use in radiotherapy.

Authors:  P Carrasco; N Jornet; O Jordi; M Lizondo; A Latorre-Musoll; T Eudaldo; A Ruiz; M Ribas
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Treatment Planning System Calculation Errors Are Present in Most Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core-Houston Phantom Failures.

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

7.  AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a.: Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations - Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams.

Authors:  Jennifer B Smilowitz; Indra J Das; Vladimir Feygelman; Benedick A Fraass; Stephen F Kry; Ingrid R Marshall; Dimitris N Mihailidis; Zoubir Ouhib; Timothy Ritter; Michael G Snyder; Lynne Fairobent
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Comprehensive validation of halcyon 2.0 plans and the implementation of patient specific QA with multiple detector platforms.

Authors:  Eric Laugeman; Ana Heermann; Jessica Hilliard; Michael Watts; Marshia Roberson; Robert Morris; Sreekrishna Goddu; Abhishek Sethi; Imran Zoberi; Hyun Kim; Sasa Mutic; Geoffrey Hugo; Bin Cai
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Determining the optimal dosimetric leaf gap setting for rounded leaf-end multileaf collimator systems by simple test fields.

Authors:  Weiguang Yao; Jonathan B Farr
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Impact of the MLC leaf-tip model in a commercial TPS: Dose calculation limitations and IROC-H phantom failures.

Authors:  Brandon Koger; Ryan Price; Da Wang; Dolla Toomeh; Sarah Geneser; Eric Ford
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.