Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine performance check (MPC) beam constancy checks for flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams

Long-term performance monitoring of a-Si 1200 electronic portal imaging device for dosimetric applications

PURPOSE

Recently, dosimetri applications of the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in radiotherapy have gained popularity. Confidence in the robust and reliable dosimetric performance of EPID detectors is essential for their clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the a-Si 1200 EPID and assess the long-term stability of its response.

METHODS

Weekly measurements were performed on two clinically used TrueBeam linear accelerators (linacs) equipped with a-Si 1200 EPID detectors over a 2-year period. They included dark and flood calibration fields, and EPID response to an open field corrected for the long-term machine output drift measured with the secondary absolute dosimeters: an ion chamber and an ion chamber array. All measurements were performed using five photon beam energies and two imaging modes: continuous and dosimetry. The measurements were analyzed for constancy and the presence of long-term trends. Comparisons were made between the two linacs for each beam energy. Pixel sensitivity matrices (PSM) were determined semi-annually and analyzed for long-term constancy for both treatment machines.

RESULTS

The long-term variation of the dark and flood field signals, integrated across the EPID plane, over the entire observation period did not exceed 0.17% and 0.79%, respectively. The output-corrected EPID response showed long-term variation from 0.28% to 0.36%, depending on beam energy, while the short-term variation was 0.04%-0.07% for EPID and 0.02%-0.06% for secondary dosimeters. The long-term variation of secondary dosimeters was 0.2%-0.3%. PSMs were found to be stable to within 1% for 97.8% of pixels and 2% for 100% of pixels.

CONCLUSION

Techniques to monitor and assess the long-term performance of the a-Si 1200 EPID as a dosimeter were developed and implemented using two TrueBeam linacs. The long-term variation of the EPID response was within clinical tolerance indicated in AAPM TG-142 report, and the detector was shown to be stable and reproducible for routine clinical dosimetry.

Applying the six-sigma methodology to determine the limits of quality control (QC) tests for a specific linear accelerator

PURPOSE

We aimed to show the framework of the six-sigma methodology (SSM) that can be used to determine the limits of QC tests for the linear accelerator (Linac). Limits for QC tests are individually determined using the SSM.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The SSM is based on the define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) stages to improve the process. In the "define" stage, the limits of QC tests were determined. In the "measure" stage, a retrospective collection of daily QC data using a Machine Performance Check platform was performed from January 2020 to December 2022. In the "analyze" stage, the process of determining the limits was proposed using statistical analyses and process capability indices. In the "improve" stage, the capability index was used to calculate the action limits. The tolerance limit was established using the larger one of the control limits in the individual control chart (I-chart). In the "control" stage, daily QC data were collected prospectively from January 2023 to May 2023 to monitor the effect of action limits and tolerance limits.

RESULTS

A total of 798 sets of QC data including beam, isocenter, collimation, couch, and gantry tests were collected and analyzed. The Collimation Rotation offset test had the min-Cp, min-Cpk, min-Pp, and min-Ppk at 2.53, 1.99, 1.59, and 1.25, respectively. The Couch Rtn test had the max-Cp, max-Cpk, max-Pp, and max-Ppk at 31.5, 29.9, 23.4, and 22.2, respectively. There are three QC tests with higher action limits than the original tolerance. Some data on the I-chart of the beam output change, isocenter KV offset, and jaw X1 exceeded the lower tolerance and action limit, which indicated that a system deviation occurred and reminded the physicist to take action to improve the process.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSM is an excellent framework to use in determining the limits of QC tests. The process capability index is an important parameter that provides quantitative information on determining the limits of QC tests.

The performance of a new type accelerator uRT-linac 506c evaluated by a quality assurance automation system

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of our quality assurance (QA) automation system and to evaluate the machine performance of a new type linear accelerator uRT-linac 506c within 6 months using this system.

METHODS

This QA automation system consists of a hollow cylindrical phantom with 18 steel balls in the phantom surface and an analysis software to process electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurement image data and report the results. The performance of the QA automation system was evaluated by the tests of repeatability, archivable precision, detectability of introduced errors, and the impact of set-up errors on QA results. The performance of this linac was evaluated by 31 items using this QA system over 6 months.

RESULTS

This QA system was able to automatically deliver QA plan, EPID image acquisition, and automatic analysis. All images acquiring and analysis took approximately 4.6 min per energy. The preset error of 0.1 mm in multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf were detected as 0.12 ± 0.01 mm for Bank A and 0.10 ± 0.01 mm in Bank B. The 2 mm setup error was detected as -1.95 ± 0.01 mm, -2.02 ± 0.01 mm, 2.01 ± 0.01 mm for X, Y, Z directions, respectively. And data from the tests of repeatability and detectability of introduced errors showed the standard deviation were all within 0.1 mm and 0.1°. and data of the machine performance were all within the tolerance specified by AAPM TG-142.

CONCLUSIONS

The QA automation system has high precision and good performance, and it can improve the QA efficiency. The performance of the new accelerator has also performed very well during the testing period.

IPEM topical report: results of a 2022 UK survey on the use of linac manufacturer integrated quality control (MIQC)

In recent years Radiotherapy linear accelerator (linac) vendors have developed their own integrated quality control (QC) systems. Such manufacturer-integrated-quality-control (MIQC) has the potential to improve both the quality and efficiency of linac QC but is currently being developed and utilised in the absence of specific best-practice guidance. An Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine working party was commissioned with a view to develop guidance for the commissioning and implementation of MIQC. This study is based upon a survey of United Kingdom (UK) radiotherapy departments performed by the working party. The survey was distributed to all heads of radiotherapy physics in the UK and investigated availability and uptake, community beliefs and opinions, utilisation, user experience and associated procedures. The survey achieved a 95% response rate and demonstrated strong support (>95%) for its use and further development. MIQC systems are available in 79% of respondents' centres, and are in clinical use in 66%. The most common MIQC system was Varian MPC, in clinical use in 58% of responding centres, with CyberKnife AQA\E2E in 11%, TomoTherapy TQA in 8% and no users of Elekta Machine QA. A majority of users found their MIQC to be easy to use, reliable, and had five or more years of experience. Most users reported occasions of discrepancy in results between MIQC and conventional testing, but the majority considered this acceptable, indicating a false reporting frequency of quarterly or less. MIQC has shown value in preventative maintenance and early detection of machine deviations. There were inconsistent approaches in the utilisation and commissioning tests performed. Fewer than half of users perform QC of MIQC. 45% of responders have modified their QC processes with the introduction of MIQC, via replacement of conventional tests or reduction in their frequency. Future guidance is recommended to assist in the implementation of MIQC.

Daily Quality Assurance Efficiency Evaluation Using SunCHECK Machine and Machine Performance Check

Purpose To investigate time efficiency, applicability, and accuracy of using a web-based, independent quality assurance (QA) platform and vendor-dependent based system check for daily linear accelerator (LINAC) QA. Methods  Time needed to perform daily QA on a single (n=1) LINAC was collected for three months. Task Group report 142 (TG-142) compliant daily QA included dosimetry checks (four photon, four electron beams); imaging checks (planar kilovolt (kV) & megavolt (MV), kV cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)); and mechanical and safety checks using SunCHECK Machine (SCM) (Sun Nuclear Inc., Melbourne, FL, USA). Additionally, Machine Performance Check (MPC) (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was performed for all energies. Four trained radiation therapists performed daily QA on both platforms. Data were collected to identify the time required to complete both SCM and MPC. Additionally, the two platforms were evaluated on usability and features. Output results were compared to our monthly standard to assess accuracy. Results On average, SCM took 22 minutes with a standard deviation of six minutes and MPC took 15 minutes with a standard deviation of three minutes. MPC output results were impacted due to the beam output being coupled to the beam profile changes. As a result, the two systems on average disagreed by -1.41% after three months despite being baselined at the same time point and output agreeing well initially (average difference of -0.1% across all energies). While there was overlap in the tests performed, SCM tests were more relevant to TG-142 while MPC tests were beneficial to machine service and, with a clear understanding of the limitations of the system, found suitable as a secondary backup to SCM for daily output verification. Conclusions  This work demonstrates that a comprehensive TG-142 daily QA can be designed using SCM and MPC can be added as a beneficial tool and backup for output verification while still maintaining an efficient daily QA process.

Evaluation of HyperArc™ using film and portal dosimetry quality assurance

HyperArc™ is a stereotactic radiotherapy modality designed for targeting multiple brain metastases using a single isocenter with multiple non-coplanar arcs. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of two patient-specific quality assurance methods, film and the Varian Portal Dosimetry System with Varian's HyperArc™ technique and raise important considerations in the customisation of patient-specific quality assurance to accommodate HyperArc™ delivery. Assessment criteria included gamma analysis and mean dose at full width half maximum. The minimum metastasis size, maximum off-axis distance and suitable energy were identified and validated. Patient-specific quality assurance procedures were applied to a range of clinically relevant brain metastasis plans. Initial investigation into energy selection showed no significant differences in gamma pass rates using 6MV, 6MV FFF, or 10MV FFF for metastasis sizes greater than 15 mm diameter at the isocenter. Gamma pass rates (2%/2mm) for 15 mm metastases at the isocenter for all energies were greater than 96.0% for portal dosimetry and greater than 98.7% for film. Fields of size 15 mm placed at various distances (10-70 mm) from the isocenter resulted in a maximum mean dose difference of 1.5% between film and planned. Clinically relevant plans resulted in a maximum mean dose difference for selected metastases of 1.0% between film and plan and a maximum point dose difference of 2.9% between portal dose and plan. Portal dose image prediction was a quick and convenient quality assurance tool for metastases larger than 15 mm near the isocenter but provided diminished geometrical relevance for off-axis metastases. Film QA required exacting procedures but offered the ability to assess the accuracy of geometrical targeting for off-axis metastases and provided dosimetric accuracy for metastases to well below 15 mm diameter.

Application of failure mode and effects analysis to validate a novel hybrid Linac QC program that integrates automated and conventional QC testing

A hybrid quality control (QC) program was developed that integrates automated and conventional Linac QC, realizing the benefits of both automated and conventional QC, increasing efficiency and maintaining independent measurement methods. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was then applied in order to validate the program prior to clinical implementation. The hybrid QC program consists of automated QC with machine performance check and DailyQA3 array on the TrueBeam Linac, and Delta4 volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) standard plan measurements, alongside conventional monthly QC at a reduced frequency. The FMEA followed the method outlined in TG-100. Process maps were created for each treatment type at our center: VMAT, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), conformal, and palliative. Possible failure modes were established by evaluating each stage in the process map. The FMEA followed semiquantitative methods, using data from our QC records from eight Linacs over 3 years for the occurrence estimates, and simulation of failure modes in the treatment planning system, with scoring surveys for severity and detectability. The risk priority number (RPN) was calculated from the product of the occurrence, severity, and detectability scores and then normalized to the maximum and ranked to determine the most critical failure modes. The highest normalized RPN values (100, 90) were found to be for MLC position dynamic for both VMAT and SBRT treatments. The next highest score was 35 for beam position for SBRT, and the majority of scores were less than 20. Overall, these RPN scores for the hybrid Linac QC program indicated that it would be acceptable, but the high RPN score associated with the dynamic MLC failure mode indicates that it would be valuable to perform more rigorous testing of the MLC. The FMEA proved to be a useful tool in validating hybrid QC.

Predicting machine's performance record using the stacked long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks

PURPOSE

The record of daily quality control (QC) items shows machine performance patterns and potentially provides warning messages for preventive actions. This study developed a neural network model that could predict the record and trend of data variations quantitively.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The record of 24 QC items for a radiotherapy machine was investigated in our institute. The QC records were collected daily for 3 years. The stacked long short-term memory (LSTM) model was used to develop the neural network model. A total of 867 records were collected to predict the record for the next 5 days. To compare the stacked LSTM, the autoregressive integrated moving average model (ARIMA) was developed on the same data set. The accuracy of the model was quantified by the mean absolute error (MAE), root-mean-square error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R2 ). To validate the robustness of the model, the record of four QC items was collected for another radiotherapy machine, which was input into the stacked LSTM model without changing any hyperparameters and ARIMA model.

RESULTS

The mean MAE, RMSE, andR 2 ${\rm{\;}}{R^2}$ with 24 QC items were 0.013, 0.020, and 0.853 in LSTM, while 0.021, 0.030, and 0.618 in ARIMA, respectively. The results showed that the stacked LSTM outperforms the ARIMA. Moreover, the mean MAE, RMSE, andR 2 ${\rm{\;}}{R^2}$ with four QC items were 0.102, 0.151, and 0.770 in LSTM, while 0.162, 0.375, and 0.550 in ARIMA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the stacked LSTM model can accurately predict the record and trend of QC items. Moreover, the stacked LSTM model is robust when applied to another radiotherapy machine. Predicting future performance record will foresee possible machine failure, allowing early machine maintenance and reducing unscheduled machine downtime.

Intra‐fractional motion error during HyperArc stereotactic radiosurgery on patients with brain metastases: Comparison of open and full‐face clamshell‐style immobilization devices

Purpose

To compare the intrafractional motion error (IME) during stereotactic irradiation (STI) in patients with brain metastases immobilized using open‐ (Encompass) and full‐face (DSPS) clamshell‐style immobilization devices.

Methods

Encompass (38 patients) and DSPS (38 patients) were used for patient immobilization, and HyperArc plans with three to four non‐coplanar beams were generated to deliver 25 to 35 Gy in three to five fractions. Cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed on patients before and after the treatment. Moreover, the difference in patient position between the two CBCT images was considered as the IME. The margins to compensate for IME were calculated using the van Herk margin formula.

Results

For Encompass, the mean values of IME in the translational setup were 0.1, 0.2, and 0.0 mm in the anterior–posterior, superior–inferior, and left–right directions, respectively, and the mean values of IME about rotational axes were −0.1, 0.0, and 0.0° for the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw rotations, respectively. For DSPS, the mean values of IME in the translational setup were 0.2, 0.2, and 0.0 mm in the anterior–posterior, superior–inferior, and left–right directions, respectively, and the mean values of IME about rotational axes were −0.1, −0.1, and 0.0° for the Pitch, Roll, and Yaw rotations, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between the IME of the two immobilization systems except in the anterior–posterior direction (p = 0.02). Moreover, no statistically significant correlation was observed between three‐dimensional IME and treatment time. The margin compensation for IME was less than 1 mm for both immobilization devices.

Conclusions

The IME during STI using open‐ and full‐face clamshell‐style immobilization devices is approximately equal considering the adequate accuracy in patient positioning.

Assessing the accuracy of electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based dosimetry: I. Quantities influencing long-term stability

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to reduce the uncertainty associated with determining dose-to-water using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging detector (EPID) under reference conditions by identifying and accounting for operational and environmental factors influencing long-term stability of EPID response.

METHODS

Measurements of the EPID relative response, corrected for variations in linear accelerator (linac) output, were performed regularly over a period of 12 months. For every acquired image set, measurements of detector supply voltages, internal operating temperature, and ambient environmental conditions were obtained. Pearson r correlation coefficients were then calculated for each pair of variables, a subset of which were fitted using multiple linear regression to develop a predictive model of EPID response. Principal component analysis was performed on the dataset to reveal the internal structure of the data in a way that best accounts for the observed variations.

RESULTS

The +5.5 V power supply voltage, internal operating temperature, and the accumulated dose absorbed in EPID were identified as having the greatest influence on the long-term stability of EPID response. By correcting for the combined effect of these variables, the mean difference in linac output as measured by the EPID relative to a reference-class chamber improved from -0.46 % to 0.23 % over the period of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This work suggests that the stability of an EPID over a period of a year can be improved by a factor of two by monitoring and accounting for the effects of variations in power supply voltage, internal temperature of the detector, and accumulated absorbed dose. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Development and Longitudinal Analysis of Plan-Based Streamlined Quality Assurance on Multiple Positioning Guidance Systems With Single Phantom Setup

Purpose

This study was to propose and validate an efficient and streamlined quality assurance (QA) method with a single phantom setup to check performances of patient positioning guidance systems including six-degree-of-freedom (6DoF) couch, X-ray modalities (kV–kV, MV–MV and CBCT), optical surface imaging system (AlignRT), lasers and optical distance indicator (ODI).

Methods and Materials

The QA method was based on a pseudo-patient treatment plan using the AlignRT cube phantom. The cube was first randomly set up on the couch, and the initial position offsets were acquired by AlignRT and CBCT. The cube was restored to its reference position by 6DoF couch shift, during which the couch motion accuracy and tracking performances of AlignRT and CBCT were derived. After that, the residual offsets were acquired by kV–kV, MV–MV and AlignRT to derive the isocenter discrepancies. Finally, the laser alignment and ODI values were visually inspected. The QA procedure had been internally approved as a standard weekly QA test, and the results over 50 weeks were longitudinally analyzed for clinical validation.

Results

The 6DoF couch motion errors as well as the tracking errors of AlignRT were sub-millimeter and sub-degree, and no deviation over 1 mm or 1 deg was identified. The ROI mode of isocenter (ISO) in AlignRT exhibited more consistent results than the centroid (CEN). While the isocenter discrepancy between CBCT and kV–kV was negligible, the maximal discrepancies between CBCT and MV–MV were 0.4 mm in LNG and 0.3 deg in PITCH. The isocenter discrepancies between CBCT and AlignRT were <0.5 mm in translation and <0.3 deg in rotation. For AlignRT, the isocenter discrepancies between the DICOM and SGRT references were about 0.6 mm in VRT, 0.5 mm in LNG and 0.2 deg in PITCH. As the therapists became familiar with the workflow, the average time to complete the whole procedure was around 23 min.

Conclusions

The streamlined QA exhibits desirable practicality as an efficient multipurpose performance check on positioning guidance systems. The stability, tracking performance and isocenter congruence of the positioning guidance systems have been fully validated for all clinical image guidance RT application, even SRS/SBRT, which requires the strictest tolerance.

An electronic portal image device (EPID)-based multiplatform rapid daily LINAC QA tool

PURPOSE

To develop an efficient and economic daily quality research tool (DQRT) for daily check of multiplatform linear accelerators (LINACs) with flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams by using an Electronic Portal Image Device (EPID).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After EPID calibration, the monitored parameters were analyzed from a 10 cm × 10 cm open and 60° wedge portal images measured by the EPID with 100 MU exposure. Next, the repeatability of the EPID position accuracy, long-term stability, and linearity between image gray value and exposure were verified. Output and beam quality stability of the 6-MV FF and FFF beams measured by DQRT with the introduced setup errors of EPID were also surveyed. Besides, some test results obtained by DQRT were compared with those measured by FC65-G and Matrixx. At last, the tool was evaluated on three LINACs (Synergy, VersaHD, TrueBeam) for 2 months with two popular commercial QA tools as references.

RESULTS

There are no differences between repeatability tests for all monitored parameters. Image grayscale values obtained by EPID and exposure show good linearity. Either 6 MV FF or FFF photon beam shows minimal impact to the results. The differences between FC65-G, Matrixx and DQRT results are negligible. Monitor results of the two commercial tools are consistent with the DQRT results collected during the 2-month period.

CONCLUSION

With a shorter time and procedure, the DQRT is useful to daily QA works of LINACs, producing a QA result quality similarly to or more better than the traditional tools and giving richer contents to the QA results. For hospitals with limited QA time window available or lack of funding to purchase commercial QA tools, the proposed DQRT can provide an alternative and economic approach to accomplish the task of daily QA for LINACs.

Long-term experience of MPC across multiple TrueBeam linacs: MPC concordance with conventional QC and sensitivity to real-world faults

Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an automated Quality Control (QC) tool that is integrated into the TrueBeam and Halcyon linear accelerators (Linacs), utilizing the imaging systems to verify the Linac beam and geometry. This work compares the concordance of daily MPC results with conventional QC tests over a 3-year period for eight Linacs in order to assess the sensitivity of MPC in detecting faults. The MPC output measurements were compared with the monthly ionization chamber measurements for 6 and 10 MV photon beams and 6, 9, 12, 16, and 18 MeV electron beams. All 6 MV Beam and Geometry (6MVBG) MPC test failures were analyzed to determine the failure rate and the number of true and false negative results, using the conventional QC record as the reference. The concordance between conventional QC test failures and MPC test failures was investigated. The mean agreement across 1933 MPC output and monthly comparison chamber measurements for all beam energies was 0.2%, with 97.8% within 1.5%, and a maximum difference of 2.9%. Of the 5000-6000 MPC individual test parameter results for the 6MVBG test, the highest failure rate was BeamOutputChange (0.5%), then BeamCenterShift (0.3%), and was ≤ 0.1% for the remaining parameters. There were 50 true negative and 27 false negative out of tolerance MPC results, with false negatives resolved by repeating MPC or by independent measurement. The analysis of conventional QC failures demonstrated that MPC detected all failures, except occasions when MPC reported output within tolerance, a result of the MPC-chamber response variation. The variation in MPC output versus chamber measurement indicates MPC is appropriate for daily output constancy but not for the measurement of absolute output. The comparison of the 6MVBG results and conventional records provides evidence that MPC is a sensitive method of performing beam and mechanical checks in a clinical setting.

Predictive quality assurance of a linear accelerator based on the machine performance check application using statistical process control and ARIMA forecast modeling

Purpose

A predictive linac quality assurance system based on the output of the Machine Performance Check (MPC) application was developed using statistical process control and autoregressive integrated moving average forecast modeling. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of predictive quality assurance based on MPC tests that allow proactive preventative maintenance procedures to be carried out to better ensure optimal linac performance and minimize downtime.

Method and Materials

Daily MPC data were acquired for a total of 490 measurements. The initial 85% of data were used in prediction model learning with the autoregressive integrated moving average technique and in calculating upper and lower control limits for statistical process control analysis. The remaining 15% of data were used in testing the accuracy of the predictions of the proposed system. Two types of prediction were studied, namely, one‐step‐ahead values for predicting the next day's quality assurance results and six‐step‐ahead values for predicting up to a week ahead. Results that fall within the upper and lower control limits indicate a normal stage of machine performance, while the tolerance, determined from AAPM TG‐142, is the clinically required performance. The gap between the control limits and the clinical tolerances (as the warning stage) provides a window of opportunity for rectifying linac performance issues before they become clinically significant. The accuracy of the predictive model was tested using the root‐mean‐square error, absolute error, and average accuracy rate for all MPC test parameters.

Results

The accuracy of the predictive model is considered high (average root‐mean‐square error and absolute error for all parameters of less than 0.05). The average accuracy rate for indicating the normal/warning stages was higher than 85.00%.

Conclusion

Predictive quality assurance with the MPC will allow preventative maintenance, which could lead to improved linac performance and a reduction in unscheduled linac downtime.

A Method to Determine the Coincidence of MRI-Guided Linac Radiation and Magnetic Isocenters

To assure accurate treatment delivery on any image-guided radiotherapy system, the relative positions and walkout of the imaging and radiation isocenters must be periodically verified and kept within specified tolerances. In this work, we first validated the multiaxis ion chamber array as a tool for finding the radiation isocenter position of a magnetic resonance–guided linear accelerator. The treatment couch with the array on it was shifted in 0.2-mm increments and the reported beam center position was plotted against that shift and fitted to a straight line, in both X and Y directions. From the goodness-of-fit and intercepts of the regression lines, the accuracy and precision were conservatively estimated at 0.2 and 0.1 mm, respectively. This holds true whether the array is irradiated from the front or from the back, which allows efficient collecting the data from the 4 cardinal gantry angles with just 2 array positions. The average isocenter position agreed to within at most 0.4 mm along any cardinal axis with the linac vendor’s film-based procedure, and the maximum walkout radii were 0.32 mm and 0.53 mm, respectively. The magnetic resonance imaging isocenter walkout as a function of gantry angle was studied with 2 different phantoms, one employing a single fiducial at the center and another extracting the rigid displacement values from the distortion map fit of 523 fiducials dispersed over a large volume. The results were close between the 2 phantoms and demonstrated variation in the magnetic resonance imaging isocenter location as high as 1.3 mm along a single axis in the transverse plane. Verification of the magnetic resonance imaging isocenter location versus the gantry angle should be a part of quality assurance for magnetic resonance-guided linear accelerators.

Stereotactic radiosurgery with MLC-defined arcs: Verification of dosimetry, spatial accuracy, and end-to-end tests

Purpose

To measure dosimetric and spatial accuracy of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered to targets as small as the trigeminal nerve (TN) using a standard external beam treatment planning system (TPS) and multileaf collimator‐(MLC) equipped linear accelerator without cones or other special attachments or modifications.

Methods

Dosimetric performance was assessed by comparing computed dose distributions to film measurements. Comparisons included the γ‐index, beam profiles, isodose lines, maximum dose, and spatial accuracy. Initially, single static 360° arcs of MLC‐shaped fields ranging from 1.6 × 5 to 30 × 30 mm² were planned and delivered to an in‐house built block phantom having approximate dimensions of a human head. The phantom was equipped with markings that allowed accurate setup using planar kV images. Couch walkout during multiple‐arc treatments was investigated by tracking a ball pointer, initially positioned at cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) isocenter, as the couch was rotated. Tracks were mapped with no load and a 90 kg stack of plastic plates simulating patient treatment. The dosimetric effect of walkout was assessed computationally by comparing test plans that corrected for walkout to plans that neglected walkout. The plans involved nine 160° arcs of 2.4 × 5 mm² fields applied at six different couch angles. For end‐to‐end tests that included CT simulation, target contouring, planning, and delivery, a cylindrical phantom mimicking a 3 mm lesion was constructed and irradiated with the nine‐arc regimen. The phantom, lacking markings as setup aids was positioned under CBCT guidance by registering its surface and internal structures with CTs from simulation. Radiochromic film passing through the target center was inserted parallel to the coronal and the sagittal plane for assessment of spatial and dosimetric accuracy.

Results

In the single‐arc block phantom tests computed maximum doses of all field sizes agreed with measurements within 2.4 ± 2.0%. Profile widths at 50% maximum agreed within 0.2 mm. The largest targeting error was 0.33 mm. The γ‐index (3%, 1 mm) averaged over 10 experiments was >1 in only 1% of pixels for field sizes up to 10 × 10 mm² and rose to 4.4% as field size increased to 20 × 20 mm². Table walkout was not affected by load. Walkout shifted the target up to 0.6 mm from CBCT isocenter but, according to computations shifted the dose cloud of the nine‐arc plan by only 0.16 mm. Film measurements verified the small dosimetric effect of walkout, allowing walkout to be neglected during planning and treatment. In the end‐to‐end tests average and maximum targeting errors were 0.30 ± 0.10 and 0.43 mm, respectively. Gamma analysis of coronal and sagittal dose distributions based on a 3%/0.3 mm agreement remained <1 at all pixels. To date, more than 50 functional SRS treatments using MLC‐shaped static field arcs have been delivered.

Conclusion

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be planned and delivered on a standard linac without cones or other modifications with better than 0.5 mm spatial and 5% dosimetric accuracy.

A multi-institutional evaluation of machine performance check system on treatment beam output and symmetry using statistical process control

BACKGROUND

The automated and integrated machine performance check (MPC) tool was verified against independent detectors to evaluate its beam uniformity and output detection abilities to consider it suitable for daily quality assurance (QA).

METHODS

Measurements were carried out on six linear accelerators (each located at six individual sites) using clinically available photon and electron energies for a period up to 12 months (n = 350). Daily constancy checks on beam symmetry and output were compared against independent devices such as the SNC Daily QA 3, PTW Farmer ionization chamber, and SNC field size QA phantom. MPC uniformity detection of beam symmetry adjustments was also assessed. Sensitivity of symmetry and output measurements were assessed using statistical process control (SPC) methods to derive tolerances for daily machine QA and baseline resets to account for drifts in output readings. I-charts were used to evaluate systematic and nonsystematic trends to improve error detection capabilities based on calculated upper and lower control levels (UCL/LCL) derived using standard deviations from the mean dataset.

RESULTS

This study investigated the vendor's method of uniformity detection. Calculated mean uniformity variations were within ± 0.5% of Daily QA 3 vertical symmetry measurements. Mean MPC output variations were within ± 1.5% of Daily QA 3 and ±0.5% of Farmer ionization chamber detected variations. SPC calculated UCL values were a measure of change observed in the output detected for both MPC and Daily QA 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine performance check was verified as a daily quality assurance tool to check machine output and symmetry while assessing against an independent detector on a weekly basis. MPC output detection can be improved by regular SPC-based trend analysis to measure drifts in the inherent device and control systematic and random variations thereby increasing confidence in its capabilities as a QA device. A 3-monthly MPC calibration assessment was recommended based on SPC capability and acceptability calculations.

Evaluation of the truebeam machine performance check (MPC): OBI X-ray tube alignment procedure

Alignment of the On‐Board Imager (OBI) X‐ray tube is important for ensuring imaging to treatment isocenter coincidence, which in turn is important for accurate Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT). Varian introduced a new X‐ray tube alignment procedure for the TrueBeam linac in software version 2.5 MR2 as part of the machine performance check (MPC) application. This study evaluated the new procedure against conventional methods and examined the clinical significance of X‐ray tube misalignment. Long term stability and short term repeatability of MPC tube alignment was assessed as well as sensitivity of the method to setup error. Standard quality assurance tests expected to be sensitive to tube misalignment were performed before and after tube alignment. These tests included: IsoCal verification; MPC kV imager offset; Winston‐Lutz: kV imaging to treatment/radiation isocenter coincidence; CBCT image QA using the Catphan phantom; and OBI image geometric accuracy and center pixel alignment. Tube alignment measurements were performed with MPC, the two‐plate method, and wire‐on‐faceplate method. The X‐ray tube was then realigned by approximately 1.01 mm in the tangential plane based upon MPC and the tube alignment and standard quality assurance measurements were repeated. The time taken for each tube alignment method was estimated. The MPC method of tube alignment was found to be repeatable, insignificantly sensitive to phantom setup error and quick and simple to perform. The standard QA tests were generally insensitive to the tube alignment change, possibly because of the IsoCal correction. However, reduction in the magnitude of IsoCal correction and MPC kV imager offset was recorded after tube alignment. There was also apparent improvement in CBCT image uniformity. The MPC procedure is recommended for X‐ray tube alignment.

A proposed method for linear accelerator photon beam steering using EPID

Beam steering is the process of calibrating the angle and translational position with which a linear accelerator's (linac's) electron beam strikes the x‐ray target with respect to the collimator rotation axis. The shape of the dose profile is highly dependent on accurate beam steering and is essential for ensuring correct delivery of the radiotherapy treatment plan. Traditional methods of beam steering utilize a scanning water tank phantom that makes the process user‐dependent. This study is the first to provide a methodology for both beam angle steering and beam translational position steering based on EPID imaging of the beam and does not require a phantom. Both the EPID‐based beam angle steering and beam translational steering methods described have been validated against IC Profiler measurement. Wide field symmetry agreement was found between the EPID and IC Profiler to within 0.06 ± 0.14% (1 SD) and 0.32 ± 0.11% (1 SD) for flattened and flattening‐filter‐free (FFF) beams, respectively. For a 1.1% change in symmetry measured by IC Profiler the EPID method agreed to within 0.23%. For beam translational position steering, the EPID method agreed with IC Profiler method to within 0.03 ± 0.05 mm (1 SD) at isocenter. The EPID‐based methods presented are quick to perform, simple, accurate and could easily be integrated with the linac, potentially via the MPC application. The methods have the potential to remove user variability and to standardize the process of beam steering throughout the radiotherapy community.

Independent validation of machine performance check for the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs for daily quality assurance

Purpose

To evaluate the ability of the machine performance check (MPC) on the Halcyon to detect errors, with comparison with the TrueBeam.

Methods

MPC is an automated set of quality assurance (QA) tests that use a phantom placed on the couch and the linac's imaging system(s) to verify the beam constancy and mechanical performance of the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs. In order to evaluate the beam constancy tests, we inserted solid water slabs between the beam source and the megavoltage imager to simulate changes in beam output, flatness, and symmetry. The MPC results were compared with measurements, using two‐dimensional array under the same conditions. We then studied the accuracy of MPC geometric tests. The accuracies of the relative gantry offset and couch shift tests were evaluated by intentionally inserting phantom shifts, using a rotating or linear motion stage. The MLC offset and absolute gantry offset tests were assessed by miscalibrating these motions on a Halcyon linac.

Results

For the Halcyon system, the average difference in the measured beam output between the IC Profiler and MPC, after intentional changes, was 1.3 ± 0.5% (for changes ≤5%). For Halcyon, the MPC test failed (i.e., prevented treatment) when the beam symmetry change was over 1.9%. The accuracy of the MLC offset test was within 0.05 mm. The absolute gantry offset test was able to detect an offset as small as 0.02°. The accuracy of the absolute couch shift test was 0.03 mm. The accuracy of relative couch shift test of Halcyon was measured as 0.16 mm.

Conclusion

We intentionally inserted errors to evaluate the ability of the MPC to identify errors in dosimetric and geometric parameters. These results showed that the MPC is sufficiently accurate to be effectively used for daily QA of the Halcyon and TrueBeam treatment devices.

Evaluation of the truebeam machine performance check (MPC) geometric checks for daily IGRT geometric accuracy quality assurance

Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an automated and integrated image‐based tool for verification of beam and geometric performance of the TrueBeam linac. The aims of the study were to evaluate the performance of the MPC geometric tests relevant to OBI/CBCT IGRT geometric accuracy. This included evaluation of the MPC isocenter and couch tests. Evaluation was performed by comparing MPC to QA tests performed routinely in the department over a 4‐month period. The MPC isocenter tests were compared against an in‐house developed Winston–Lutz test and the couch compared against routine mechanical QA type procedures. In all cases the results from the routine QA procedure was presented in a form directly comparable to MPC to allow a like‐to‐like comparison. The sensitivity of MPC was also tested by deliberately miscalibrating the appropriate linac parameter. The MPC isocenter size and MPC kV imager offset were found to agree with Winston–Lutz to within 0.2 mm and 0.22 mm, respectively. The MPC couch tests agreed with routine QA to within 0.12 mm and 0.15°. The MPC isocenter size and kV imager offset parameters were found to be affected by a change in beam focal spot position with the kV imager offset more sensitive. The MPC couch tests were all unaffected by an offset in the couch calibration but the three axes that utilized two point calibrations were sensitive to a miscalibration of the size in the span of the calibration. All MPC tests were unaffected by a deliberate misalignment of the MPC phantom and roll of the order of one degree.