Initial validations for pursuing irradiation using a gimbals tracking system

We proposed a simple visual method for evaluating the dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) accuracy of a gimbal mechanism using a light field. A single photon beam was set with a field size of 30×30 mm2 at a gantry angle of 90°. The center of a cube phantom was set up at the isocenter of a motion table, and 4D modeling was performed based on the tumor and infrared (IR) marker motion. After 4D modeling, the cube phantom was replaced with a sheet of paper, which was placed perpendicularly, and a light field was projected on the sheet of paper. The light field was recorded using a web camera in a treatment room that was as dark as possible. Calculated images from each image obtained using the camera were summed to compose a total summation image. Sinusoidal motion sequences were produced by moving the phantom with a fixed amplitude of 20 mm and different breathing periods of 2, 4, 6, and 8 s. The light field was projected on the sheet of paper under three conditions: with the moving phantom and DTT based on the motion of the phantom, with the moving phantom and non‐DTT, and with a stationary phantom for comparison. The values of tracking errors using the light field were 1.12±0.72, 0.31±0.19, 0.27±0.12, and 0.15±0.09 mm for breathing periods of 2, 4, 6, and 8 s, respectively. The tracking accuracy showed dependence on the breathing period. We proposed a simple quality assurance (QA) process for the tracking accuracy of a gimbal mechanism system using a light field and web camera. Our method can assess the tracking accuracy using a light field without irradiation and clearly visualize distributions like film dosimetry.PACS number(s): 87.56 Fc, 87.55.Qr

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Simple quality assurance method of dynamic tumor tracking with the gimbaled linac system using a light field

Miura

Ozawa

Hayata³

et al. 2016

“…The greatest movement is produced in the superior–inferior (SI) direction close to the diaphragm, such as with tumors in the lower lung lobes and upper abdominal tumors, such as liver or pancreatic tumors 1. Several methods have been proposed to compensate for respiratory‐induced organ motion, including forced shallow‐breathing, breath holding, respiratory gating, and dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. DTT was realized through reasonably accurate real‐time acquisition of the target motion of a patient using external surrogates (indirect DTT) or an internally implanted marker (direct DTT).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality assurance of a gimbaled head swing verification using feature point tracking

Miura

Ozawa

Enosaki

et al. 2016

To perform dynamic tumor tracking (DTT) for clinical applications safely and accurately, gimbaled head swing verification is important. We propose a quantitative gimbaled head swing verification method for daily quality assurance (QA), which uses feature point tracking and a web camera. The web camera was placed on a couch at the same position for every gimbaled head swing verification, and could move based on a determined input function (sinusoidal patterns; amplitude: ± 20 mm; cycle: 3 s) in the pan and tilt directions at isocenter plane. Two continuous images were then analyzed for each feature point using the pyramidal Lucas–Kanade (LK) method, which is an optical flow estimation algorithm. We used a tapped hole as a feature point of the gimbaled head. The period and amplitude were analyzed to acquire a quantitative gimbaled head swing value for daily QA. The mean ± SD of the period were 3.00 ± 0.03 (range: 3.00–3.07) s and 3.00 ± 0.02 (range: 3.00–3.07) s in the pan and tilt directions, respectively. The mean ± SD of the relative displacement were 19.7 ± 0.08 (range: 19.6–19.8) mm and 18.9 ± 0.2 (range: 18.4–19.5) mm in the pan and tilt directions, respectively. The gimbaled head swing was reliable for DTT. We propose a quantitative gimbaled head swing verification method for daily QA using the feature point tracking method and a web camera. Our method can quantitatively assess the gimbaled head swing for daily QA from baseline values, measured at the time of acceptance and commissioning.

“…The system has a gimbaled X‐ray head composed of a compact 6 MV linac with a C‐band klystron‐based accelerator, a fixed collimator, and a unique multileaf collimator (MLC) 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . The source‐to‐axis distance (SAD) is 1000 mm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a dose verification system for Vero4DRT using Monte Carlo method

Ishihara

Sawada

Nakamura

et al. 2014

Self Cite

Vero4DRT is an innovative image‐guided radiotherapy system employing a C‐band X‐ray head with gimbal mechanics. The purposes of this study were to propose specific MC models of the linac head and multileaf collimator (MLC) for the Vero4DRT and to verify their accuracy. For a 6 MV photon beam delivered by the Vero4DRT, a simulation code was implemented using EGSnrc. The linac head model and the MLC model were simulated based on its specification. Next, the percent depth dose (PDD) and beam profiles at depths of 15, 100, and 200 mm were simulated under source‐to‐surface distance of 900 and 1000 mm. Field size was set to 150×150.15emmm2 at a depth of 100 mm. Each of the simulated dosimetric metrics was then compared with the corresponding measurements by a 0.125 cc ionization chamber. After that, intra‐ and interleaf leakage, tongue‐and‐groove, and rounded‐leaf profiles were simulated for the static MLC model. Meanwhile, film measurements were performed using EDR2 films under similar conditions to simulation. The measurement for the rounded‐leaf profile was performed using the water phantom and the ionization chamber. The leaf physical density and abutting leaf gap were adjusted to obtain good agreement between the simulated intra‐ and interleaf leakage profiles and measurements. For the MLC model in step‐and‐shoot cases, a pyramid and a prostate IMRT field were simulated, while film measurements were performed using EDR2. For the linac head, exclusive of MLC, the difference in PDD was <1.0% after the buildup region. The simulated beam profiles agreed to within 1.3% at each depth. The MLC model has been shown to reproduce dose measurements within 2.5% for static tests. The MLC is made of tungsten alloy with a purity of 95%. The leaf gap of 0.015 cm and the MLC physical density of 18.0.15emnormalg/.15emcm3, which provided the best agreement between the simulated and measured leaf leakage, were assigned to our MC model. As a result, the simulated step‐and‐shoot IMRT dose distributions agreed with the film measurements to within 3.3%, with exception of the penumbra region. We have developed specific MC models of the linac head and the MLC in the Vero4DRT system. The results have demonstrated that our MC models have high accuracy.PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.56.nk, 87.56.bd