Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: A multi‐institutional study

The purpose of this study is to characterize the dosimetric properties and accuracy of a novel treatment platform (Edge radiosurgery system) for localizing and treating patients with frameless, image‐guided stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Initial measurements of various components of the system, such as a comprehensive assessment of the dosimetric properties of the flattening filter‐free (FFF) beams for both high definition (HD120) MLC and conical cone‐based treatment, positioning accuracy and beam attenuation of a six degree of freedom (6DoF) couch, treatment head leakage test, and integrated end‐to‐end accuracy tests, have been performed. The end‐to‐end test of the system was performed by CT imaging a phantom and registering hidden targets on the treatment couch to determine the localization accuracy of the optical surface monitoring system (OSMS), cone‐beam CT (CBCT), and MV imaging systems, as well as the radiation isocenter targeting accuracy. The deviations between the percent depth‐dose curves acquired on the new linac‐based system (Edge), and the previously published machine with FFF beams (TrueBeam) beyond Dmax were within 1.0% for both energies. The maximum deviation of output factors between the Edge and TrueBeam was 1.6%. The optimized dosimetric leaf gap values, which were fitted using Eclipse dose calculations and measurements based on representative spine radiosurgery plans, were 0.700 mm and 1.000 mm, respectively. For the conical cones, 6X FFF has sharper penumbra ranging from 1.2−1.8 mm (80%‐20%) and 1.9−3.8 mm (90%‐10%) relative to 10X FFF, which has 1.2−2.2 mm and 2.3−5.1 mm, respectively. The relative attenuation measurements of the couch for PA, PA (rails‐in), oblique, oblique (rails‐out), oblique (rails‐in) were: −2.0%, −2.5%, −15.6%, −2.5%, −5.0% for 6X FFF and −1.4%, −1.5%, −12.2%, −2.5%, −5.0% for 10X FFF, respectively, with a slight decrease in attenuation versus field size. The systematic deviation between the OSMS and CBCT was −0.4±0.2 mm, 0.1±0.3 mm, and 0.0±0.1 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. The mean values and standard deviations of the average deviation and maximum deviation of the daily Winston‐Lutz tests over three months are 0.20±0.03 mm and 0.66±0.18 mm, respectively. Initial testing of this novel system demonstrates the technology to be highly accurate and suitable for frameless, linac‐based SRS and SBRT treatment.PACS number: 87.56.J‐

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of a novel treatment system for linear accelerator–based stereotactic radiosurgery

Song

Chin-Snyder

et al. 2015

“…The use of a 2%/2 mm gamma criteria and more rigorous small field testing was a good complement to the limited dataset recommended by vendors for commissioning. For users who wish to scrutinize their TPS models further, we recommend comparing your results to previous work on the topic of validation found in the literature 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Finally, we wanted to note what appears to be an error in MPPG 5.a to future users of the guideline.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2001, Venselaar et al6 proposed a set of tests and appropriate tolerances for photon beam dose calculations. In addition, validation tests for nonstandard treatment geometries, inhomogeneous media, MLC modeling, and commissioning have been described 7, 8, 9. The 2008 AAPM Task Group Report No.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of the validation testing in MPPG 5.a “Commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations–megavoltage photon and electron beams”

Jacqmin

Bredfeldt

Frigo

et al. 2016

The AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) 5.a provides concise guidance on the commissioning and QA of beam modeling and dose calculation in radiotherapy treatment planning systems. This work discusses the implementation of the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a at two institutions. The two institutions worked collaboratively to create a common set of treatment fields and analysis tools to deliver and analyze the validation tests. This included the development of a novel, open‐source software tool to compare scanning water tank measurements to 3D DICOM‐RT Dose distributions. Dose calculation algorithms in both Pinnacle and Eclipse were tested with MPPG 5.a to validate the modeling of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. The validation process resulted in more than 200 water tank scans and more than 50 point measurements per institution, each of which was compared to a dose calculation from the institution's treatment planning system (TPS). Overall, the validation testing recommended in MPPG 5.a took approximately 79 person‐hours for a machine with four photon and five electron energies for a single TPS. Of the 79 person‐hours, 26 person‐hours required time on the machine, and the remainder involved preparation and analysis. The basic photon, electron, and heterogeneity correction tests were evaluated with the tolerances in MPPG 5.a, and the tolerances were met for all tests. The MPPG 5.a evaluation criteria were used to assess the small field and IMRT/VMAT validation tests. Both institutions found the use of MPPG 5.a to be a valuable resource during the commissioning process. The validation testing in MPPG 5.a showed the strengths and limitations of the TPS models. In addition, the data collected during the validation testing is useful for routine QA of the TPS, validation of software upgrades, and commissioning of new algorithms.

“…These tests typically begin by measuring the accuracy of both static IMRT and RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) treatments of simple spherical head tumors ranging from 3 cm to 1 cm in diameter with Gafchromic EBT3 film (Ashland Inc., Covington, KY). A different series of end‐to‐end tests were presented in a recent multi‐institutional study on the commissioning of a number of TrueBeam (Varian) linacs (7) . These tests typically focused on one type of dosimetric modality per phantom and not all phantoms were truly anthropomorphic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and evaluation of an end‐to‐end test for head and neck IMRT with a novel multiple‐dosimetric modality phantom

Zakjevskii

Knill

Rakowski

et al. 2016

A comprehensive end‐to‐end test for head and neck IMRT treatments was developed using a custom phantom designed to utilize multiple dosimetry devices. Initial end‐to‐end test and custom H&N phantom were designed to yield maximum information in anatomical regions significant to H&N plans with respect to: (i) geometric accuracy, (ii) dosimetric accuracy, and (iii) treatment reproducibility. The phantom was designed in collaboration with Integrated Medical Technologies. The phantom was imaged on a CT simulator and the CT was reconstructed with 1 mm slice thickness and imported into Varian's Eclipse treatment planning system. OARs and the PTV were contoured with the aid of Smart Segmentation. A clinical template was used to create an eight‐field IMRT plan and dose was calculated with heterogeneity correction on. Plans were delivered with a TrueBeam equipped with a high definition MLC. Preliminary end‐to‐end results were measured using film, ion chambers, and optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLDs). Ion chamber dose measurements were compared to the treatment planning system. Films were analyzed with FilmQA Pro using composite gamma index. OSLDs were read with a MicroStar reader using a custom calibration curve. Final phantom design incorporated two axial and one coronal film planes with 18 OSLD locations adjacent to those planes as well as four locations for IMRT ionization chambers below inferior film plane. The end‐to‐end test was consistently reproducible, resulting in average gamma pass rate greater than 99% using 3normal%/3 mm analysis criteria, and average OSLD and ion chamber measurements within 1% of planned dose. After initial calibration of OSLD and film systems, the end‐to‐end test provides next‐day results, allowing for integration in routine clinical QA. Preliminary trials have demonstrated that our end‐to‐end is a reproducible QA tool that enables the ongoing evaluation of dosimetric and geometric accuracy of clinical head and neck treatments.PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr