Modeling of carbon fiber couch attenuation properties with a commercial treatment planning system

This study details the generation, verification, and implementation of a treatment planning system (TPS) couch top model for patient support system used in conjunction with a dedicated stereotactic linear accelerator. Couch top model was created within the TPS using CT simulation images of the kVue Calpyso‐compatible couchtop (with rails). Verification measurements were compared to TPS dose prediction for different energies (6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF) and rail configurations (rails in and rails out) using: 1) central axis point‐dose measurements with pinpoint chamber in water‐equivalent phantom at 42 gantry angles for various field sizes (2×2 cm2,4×4 cm2,10×10 cm2); and 2) Gafchromic EBT3 film parallel to beam in acrylic slab to assess changes in surface and percent depth doses in PA geometry. To assess sensitivity of delivered dose to variations in patient lateral position, measurements at central axis using the pinpoint chamber geometry were taken at lateral couch displacements of 2, 5, and 10 mm for 6 MV FFF. The maximum percent difference for point‐dose measurements was 3.24% (6 MV FFF) and 2.30% (10 MV FFF). The average percent difference for point‐dose measurements was less than 1.10% for all beam energies and rail geometries. The maximum percent difference between calculated and measured dose can be as large as 13.0% if no couch model is used for dose calculation. The presence of the couch structures also impacts surface dose and PDD, which was evaluated with Gafchromic film measurements. The upstream shift in the depth of dose maximum (dmax) was found to be 10.5 mm for 6 MV FFF and 5.5 mm for 10 MV FFF for ‘Rails In’ configuration. Transmission of the treatment beam through the couch results in an increase in surface dose (absolute percentage) of approximately 50% for both photon energies (6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF). The largest sensitivity to lateral shifts occurred at the lateral boundary of the rail structures. The mean magnitude (standard deviation) of the deviation between shifted and centered measurements over all field sizes tested was 0.61% (0.61%) for 2 mm shifts, 0.46% (0.67%) for 5 mm shifts, and 0.86% (1.46%) for 10 mm shifts.PACS numbers: 87.56.‐v, 87.56.Da, 87.56.Fc

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation and verification of QFix kVue Calypso‐compatible couch top model for a dedicated stereotactic linear accelerator with FFF beams

Gardner

Gulam

Song

et al. 2015

“…( 12 , 23 ) The values quoted above were obtained with the standard Varian Clinac 6 MV beams. The high dose rate Novalis beam has a lower energy because of a modified flattening filter.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The modeling of the treatment table in Pinnacle was recently reported by Mihaylov et al ( 23 ) The table has a non‐homogeneous structure and its full representation requires a number of contours. ( 23 ) Pinnacle currently does not have a built‐in facility to include the treatment table in the plan, as described for another TPS.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of Pinnacle treatment planning system for use with Novalis delivery unit

Faygelman

Hunt

Walker

et al. 2010

For an institution that already owns the licenses, it is economically advantageous and technically feasible to use Pinnacle TPS (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI) with the BrainLab Novalis delivery system (BrainLAB A.G., Heimstetten, Germany). This takes advantage of the improved accuracy of the convolution algorithm in the presence of heterogeneities compared with the pencil beam calculation, which is particularly significant for lung SBRT treatments. The reference patient positioning DRRs still have to be generated by the BrainLab software from the CT images and isocenter coordinates transferred from Pinnacle. We validated this process with the end‐to‐end hidden target test, which showed an isocenter positioning error within one standard deviation from the previously established mean value. The Novalis treatment table attenuation is substantial (up to 6.2% for a beam directed straight up and up to 8.4% for oblique incidence) and has to be accounted for in calculations. A simple single‐contour treatment table model was developed, resulting in mean differences between the measured and calculated attenuation factors of 0.0%–0.2%, depending on the field size. The maximum difference for a single incidence angle is 1.1%. The BrainLab micro‐MLC (mMLC) leaf tip, although not geometrically round, can be represented in Pinnacle by an arch with satisfactory dosimetric accuracy. Subsequently, step‐and‐shoot (direct machine parameter optimization) IMRT dosimetric agreement is excellent. VMAT (called “SmartArc” in Pinnacle) treatments with constant gantry speed and dose rate are feasible without any modifications to the accelerator. Due to the 3 mm‐wide mMLC leaves, the use of a 2 mm calculation grid is recommended. When dual arcs are used for the more complex cases, the overall dosimetric agreement for the SmartArc plans compares favorably with the previously reported results for other implementations of VMAT: γ(3%,3mm) for absolute dose obtained with the biplanar diode array passing rates above 97% with the mean of 98.6%. However, a larger than expected dose error with the single‐arc plans, confined predominantly to the isocenter region, requires further investigationPACS numbers: 87.55Qr, 87.56Nk

Quantification and comparison the dosimetric impact of two treatment couch model in VMAT

Zhang

Gao

Bai

2017

The use of Monte Carlo treatment planning systems (TPS) in radiation therapy has increased the dosimetric accuracy of VMAT treatment sequences. However, this accuracy is compromised by not including the treatment couch into the treatment planning process. Therefore, the impact of the treatment couch on radiation delivery output was determined, and two different couch models (uniform couch model A vs two components model B) were included and tested in the Monaco TPS to investigate which model can better quantify the couch influence on radiation dose. Relative attenuation measurements were performed following procedures outlined by TG‐176 with three phantom positions for A–B direction: on the left half (L), in the center (C) and on the right half (R) of the couch. As well as absolute dose comparison of static fields of 10 × 10 cm2 that were delivered through the couch tops with that calculated in the TPS with the couch model at 2 mm and 5 mm computing grid size respectively. The most severe percentage deviation was 4.60% for the phantom positioned at the left half of the couch with 5 mm grid size at gantry angle 120°. The couch model was included in the TPS with a uniform ED of 0.26 g/cm3 or a two component model with a fiber 0.52 g/cm3 and foam core 0.1 g/cm3. After including the treatment couch, the maximum mean dose attenuation was reduced from 3.68% without couch included to (0.60, 0.83, 0.72, and 1.02) % for model A and model B at 2 and 5 mm voxel grid size. The results obtained showed that Model A performed better than the model B, demonstrating lower deviations from measurements and better robustness against dose grid resolution changes. Considering the results of this study, we propose the systematic introduction of the couch Model A in clinical routine. All the reported findings are valid for the Elekta iBEAM ® evo Extension 415 couch and these methods can also be used for other couch model.