No abstract

We report a mathematically rigorous formulation for the qualitative evaluation of beam matching between linear accelerators.

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a gantry‐mounted detector system and a couch set detector system using a systematic multileaf collimator positional error manually introduced for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. Four head and neck and esophagus VMAT plans were evaluated by measurement using an electronic portal imaging device and an ion chamber array. Each plan was copied and duplicated with a 1 mm systematic MLC positional error in the left leaf bank. Direct comparison of measurements for plans with and without the error permitted observational characteristics for quality assurance performance between detectors. A total of 48 different plans were evaluated for this testing. The mean percentage planar dose differences required to satisfy a 95% match between plans with and without the MLCPE were 5.2% ± 0.5% for the chamber array with gantry motion, 8.12% ± 1.04% for the chamber array with a static gantry at 0°, and 10.9% ± 1.4% for the EPID with gantry motion. It was observed that the EPID was less accurate due to overresponse of the MLCPE in the left leaf bank. The EPID always images bank‐A on the ipsilateral side of the detector, whereas for a chamber array or for a patient, that bank changes as it crosses the ‐90° or +90° position. A couch set detector system can reproduce the TPS calculated values most consistently. We recommend it as the most reliable patient specific QA system for MLC position error testing. This research is highlighted by the finding of up to 12.7% dose variation for H/N and esophagus cases for VMAT delivery, where the mere source of error was the stated clinically acceptability of 1 mm MLC position deviation of TG‐142.PACS numbers: 87.56.‐v, 87.55.‐x, 07.57.KP, 29.40.‐n, 85.25.Pb

No abstract

No abstract