An EPID based method for efficient and precise asymmetric jaw alignment quality assurance

Application programming interface guided QA plan generation and analysis automation

Purpose

Linear accelerator quality assurance (QA) in radiation therapy is a time consuming but fundamental part of ensuring the performance characteristics of radiation delivering machines. The goal of this work is to develop an automated and standardized QA plan generation and analysis system in the Oncology Information System (OIS) to streamline the QA process.

Methods

Automating the QA process includes two software components: the AutoQA Builder to generate daily, monthly, quarterly, and miscellaneous periodic linear accelerator QA plans within the Treatment Planning System (TPS) and the AutoQA Analysis to analyze images collected on the Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) allowing for a rapid analysis of the acquired QA images. To verify the results of the automated QA analysis, results were compared to the current standard for QA assessment for the jaw junction, light‐radiation coincidence, picket fence, and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) QA plans across three linacs and over a 6‐month period.

Results

The AutoQA Builder application has been utilized clinically 322 times to create QA patients, construct phantom images, and deploy common periodic QA tests across multiple institutions, linear accelerators, and physicists. Comparing the AutoQA Analysis results with our current institutional QA standard the mean difference of the ratio of intensity values within the field‐matched junction and ball‐bearing position detection was 0.012 ± 0.053 (P = 0.159) and is 0.011 ± 0.224 mm (P = 0.355), respectively. Analysis of VMAT QA plans resulted in a maximum percentage difference of 0.3%.

Conclusion

The automated creation and analysis of quality assurance plans using multiple APIs can be of immediate benefit to linear accelerator quality assurance efficiency and standardization. QA plan creation can be done without following tedious procedures through API assistance, and analysis can be performed inside of the clinical OIS in an automated fashion.

Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators

PURPOSE

To investigate and improve the level of equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators (linacs) in energy-, dosimetric leaf gap- (DLG) and jaw calibration.

METHODS

Eight linacs with four photon energies: 6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF, and 15 MV, and three electron energies (on two linacs): 6, 9, and 12 MeV were commisioned and beam-matched. Initially, symmetry of lateral profiles was calibrated for maximum field size. Energy-matching was then performed for photons by adjusting diagonal profiles at maximum field size and depth of maximum dose to coincide with the reference linac, and for electrons by matching the range at percentage depth of ionization of 90%, 80%, and 50%. Calibration of DLG was performed for 6 MV and evaluated among the linacs. The relationship between DLG and the Gap value was investigated. A method using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was developed and implemented for jaw calibration.

RESULTS

Symmetry calibration for photons (electrons) was within 1% (0.7%), further improving the vendor's acceptance criteria. Photon and electron energy-matching was within 0.5% and 0.1 mm, respectively. Calibration of DLG was within 0.032 mm among the linacs and utilizing the relationship between DLG and the Gap value resulted in an empirical calibration method which was implemented to simplify DLG adjustment. Using EPID-based method of calibration, evaluation of the jaw-positioning among the linacs for 30 cm × 30 cm field size was within 0.4 mm and in the junction area within 0.2 mm. Dose delivery error of VMAT-plans were at least 99.2% gamma pass rate (1%, 1 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

High level of equivalency, beyond clinically accepted criteria, of TrueBeam linacs could be achieved which reduced dose delivery systematic errors and increased confidence in interchanging patients among linacs.

Calibrating TrueBeam jaws by considering collimator walkout to improve the dose uniformity at abutting field junctions

Jaw positions on a linear accelerator are calibrated to have accurate field size values over the range of jaw positions and to have excellent junctions when matching fields. It is sufficient to have field size accuracy on the order of a millimeter for most clinical applications but good junctions require submillimeter precision and accuracy in the jaw positioning. Presented is a method to measure collimator walkout with the MV imager and a mathematical model to determine an optimal origin for calibrating jaws on the TrueBeam accelerator. The calibration procedure uses the jaw position encoders which are sufficiently accurate and precise enough to achieve a homogeneous junction dose for abutting fields.

MLC positioning verification for small fields: a new investigation into automatic EPID-based verification methods

Multileaf-collimator (MLC) defined small fields in radiotherapy are used in high dose, ultra-conformal techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery. Proximity to critical structures and irreversible damage arising from inaccurate delivery mean that correct positioning of the MLC system is of the utmost importance. Some of the existing techniques for MLC positioning quality assurance make use of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. However, conventional collimation verification algorithms based on the full width at half maximum (FWHM) fail when applied to small field images acquired by an EPID due to overlapping aperture penumbrae, lateral electron disequilibrium and radiation source occlusion. The objective of this study was to investigate sub-pixel edge detection and other techniques with the aim of developing an automatic and autonomous EPID-based method suitable for MLC positional verification of small static fields with arbitrary shapes. Methods investigated included derivative interpolation, Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) and an algorithm based on the partial area effect hypothesis. None of these methods were found to be suitable for MLC positioning verification in small field conditions. A method is proposed which uses a manufacturer-specific empirically modified FWHM algorithm which shows improvement over the conventional techniques in the small field size range. With a measured mean absolute difference from planned position for Varian linacs of 0.01 ± 0.26 mm, compared with the erroneous FWHM value of 0.70 ± 0.51 mm. For Elekta linacs the proposed algorithm returned 0.26 ± 0.25 mm, in contrast to the FWHM result of 1.79 ± 1.07 mm.

Rapid acceptance testing of modern linac using on-board MV and kV imaging systems

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop a novel process for using on-board MV and kV Electronic Portal Imaging Devices (EPIDs) to perform linac acceptance testing (AT) for two reasons: (a) to standardize the assessment of new equipment performance, and (b) to reduce the time to clinical use while reducing physicist workload.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this study, Varian TrueBeam linacs equipped with amorphous silicon-based EPID (aS1000) were used. The conventional set of AT tests and tolerances were used as a baseline guide. A novel methodology was developed or adopted from published literature to perform as many tests as possible using the MV and kV EPIDs. The developer mode on Varian TrueBeam linacs was used to automate the process. In the EPID-based approach, most of mechanical tests were conducted by acquiring images through a custom phantom and software tools were developed for quantitative analysis to extract different performance parameters. The embedded steel-spheres in a custom phantom provided both visual and radiographic guidance for beam geometry testing. For photon beams, open field EPID images were used to extract inline/crossline profiles to verify the beam energy, flatness and symmetry. EPID images through a double wedge phantom were used for evaluating electron beam properties via diagonal profile. Testing was augmented with a commercial automated application (Machine Performance Check) which was used to perform several geometric accuracy tests such as gantry, collimator rotations, and couch rotations/translations.

RESULTS

The developed process demonstrated that the tests, which required customer demonstration, were efficiently performed using EPIDs. The AT tests that were performed using EPIDs were fully automated using the developer mode on the Varian TrueBeam system, while some tests, such as the light field versus radiation field congruence, and collision interlock checks required user interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

On-board imagers are quite suitable for both geometric and dosimetric testing of linac system involved in AT. Electronic format of the acquired data lends itself to benchmarking, transparency, as well as longitudinal use of AT data. While the tests were performed on a specific model of a linear accelerator, the proposed approach can be extended to other linacs.

Evaluation of the truebeam machine performance check (MPC): mechanical and collimation checks

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 beam collimation (MLC and jaws) and mechanical systems (gantry and collimator). Evaluation was performed by comparing MPC to QA tests performed routinely in the department over a 4‐month period. The MPC MLC tests were compared to an in‐house analysis of the Picket Fence test. The jaw positions were compared against an in‐house EPID‐based method, against the traditional light field and graph paper technique and against the Daily QA3 device. The MPC collimator and gantry were compared against spirit level and the collimator further compared to Picket Fence analysis. In all cases, the results from the routine QA procedure were 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 MLC was found to agree with Picket Fence to within 0.3 mm and the MPC jaw check agreed with in‐house EPID measurements within 0.2 mm. All MPC parameters were found to be accurately sensitive to deliberately introduced calibration errors. For the tests evaluated, MPC appears to be suitable as a daily QA check device.

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

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 MPC beam performance tests against current daily quality assurance (QA) methods, to compare MPC performance against more accurate monthly QA tests and to test the sensitivity of MPC to changes in beam performance. The MPC beam constancy checks test the beam output, uniformity, and beam center against the user defined baseline. MPC was run daily over a period of 5 months (n = 115) in parallel with the Daily QA3 device. Additionally, IC Profiler, in‐house EPID tests, and ion chamber measurements were performed biweekly and results presented in a form directly comparable to MPC. The sensitivity of MPC was investigated using controlled adjustments of output, beam angle, and beam position steering. Over the period, MPC output agreed with ion chamber to within 0.6%. For an output adjustment of 1.2%, MPC was found to agree with ion chamber to within 0.17%. MPC beam center was found to agree with the in‐house EPID method within 0.1 mm. A focal spot position adjustment of 0.4 mm (at isocenter) was measured with MPC beam center to within 0.01 mm. An average systematic offset of 0.5% was measured in the MPC uniformity and agreement of MPC uniformity with symmetry measurements was found to be within 0.9% for all beams. MPC uniformity detected a change in beam symmetry of 1.5% to within 0.3% and 0.9% of IC Profiler for flattened and FFF beams, respectively.

A method for accurate zero calibration of asymmetric jaws in single-isocenter half-beam techniques

PURPOSE

To present a practical method for calibrating the zero position of asymmetric jaws that provides higher accuracy at the central axis and improves dose homogeneity in the abutting region of half-beams.

METHODS

Junction doses were measured for each asymmetric jaw using the double-exposure technique and electronic portal imaging devices. The junction dose was determined as a function of jaw position. The shift in the zero jaw position (or in its corresponding potentiometer readout) required to correct for the measured junction dose could thus be obtained. The jaw calibration was then modified to introduce the calculated shift and therefore achieve an accurate zero position in order to provide a relative junction dose that was as close to zero as possible.

RESULTS

All the asymmetric jaws from four medical linear accelerators were calibrated with the new calibration procedure. Measured relative junction doses at gantry 0° were reduced from a maximum of ±40% to a maximum of ±8% for all the jaws in the four considered accelerators. These results were valid for 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams and for any combination of asymmetric jaws set to zero. The calibration was stable over a long period of time; therefore, the need for recalibrating is seldom necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

Accurate calibration of the zero position of the jaws is feasible in current medical linear accelerators. The proposed procedure is fast and it improves dose homogeneity at the junction of half-beams, thus, allowing a more accurate and safer use of these techniques.

Long-term two-dimensional pixel stability of EPIDs used for regular linear accelerator quality assurance

The long-term stability of three clinical electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) was studied to determine if longer times between calibrations can be justified. This would make alternatives to flood-field calibration of EPIDs clinically feasible, allowing for more effective use of EPIDs for dosimetry. Images were acquired monthly for each EPID as part of regular clinical quality assurance over a time period of approximately 3 years. The images were analysed to determine (1) the long-term stability of the EPID positioning system, (2) the dose response of the central pixels and (3) the long term stability of each pixel in the imager. The position of the EPID was found to be very repeatable with variations less than 0.3 pixels (0.27 mm) for all imagers (1 standard deviation). The central axis dose response was found to reliably track ion chamber measurements to better than 0.5%. The mean variation in pixel response (1 standard deviation), averaged over all pixels in the EPID, was found to be at most 0.6% for the three EPIDs studied over the entire period. More than 99% of pixels in each EPID showed less than 1% variation. Since the EPID response was found to be very stable over long periods of time, an annual calibration should be sufficient in most cases. More complex dosimetric calibrations should be clinically feasible.

The influence of the field setup on the dosimetry of abutted fields in single-isocenter half-beam techniques

PURPOSE

To study the influence of the field setup on the dosimetry at the junction in single-isocenter half-beam techniques.

METHODS

The dosimetry at the junction for a two-field setup with the gantry at zero was first evaluated with radiochromic films. A three-field setup, with an anterior field and two opposed lateral fields, was also analyzed for two different relative positions of the fields involved. In all cases, the dose increase at the central axis, called the junction dose, was measured.

RESULTS

Junction doses varied greatly with the setup. For the three-field setup, the junction dose differed from that obtained with the two-field setup, and it greatly depended on the relative position of the fields. When the anterior field was closer to the gantry than the lateral fields, a field gap occurred and the junction dose was negative. When the anterior field was farther from the gantry than the lateral fields, a field overlap was obtained and the junction dose was positive. The difference in the junction dose between the three-field setups was around 18% for the three accelerators evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Having a uniform dose distribution for two fields at gantry 0 degrees does not guarantee a uniform distribution at other gantry angles. Junction doses are largely affected by the relative position of the radiation fields, which may have an impact in clinical practice. Therefore, any method aiming to assess or to optimize the dose homogeneity at the junction should take this effect into account.