Characterization and commissioning of a new collaborative multi-modality radiotherapy platform.

TaiChi, a new multi-modality radiotherapy platform that integrates a linear accelerator, a focusing gamma system, and a kV imaging system within an enclosed O-ring gantry, was introduced into clinical application. This work aims to assess the technological characteristics and commissioning results of the TaiChi platform. The acceptance testing and commissioning were performed following the manufacturer's customer acceptance tests (CAT) and several AAPM Task Group (TG) reports/guidelines. Regarding the linear accelerator (linac), all applicable validation measurements recommended by the MPPG 5.a (basic photon beam model validation, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) validation, end-to-end(E2E) tests, and patient-specific quality assurance (QA)) were performed. For the focusing gamma system, the absorbed doses were measured using a PTW31014 ion chamber (IC) and PTW60016 diode detector. EBT3 films and a PTW60016 diode detector were employed to measure the relative output factors (ROFs). The E2E tests were performed using PTW31014 IC and EBT3 films. The coincidences between the imaging isocenter and the linac/gamma mechanical isocenter were investigated using EBT3 films. The image quality was evaluated regarding the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), spatial resolution, and uniformity. All tests included in the CAT met the manufacturer's specifications. All MPPG 5.a measurements complied with the tolerances. The confidence limits for IMRT/VMAT point dose and dose distribution measurements were achieved according to TG-119. The point dose differences were below 1.68% and gamma passing rates (3%/2 mm) were above 95.1% for the linac E2E tests. All plans of patient-specific QA had point dose differences below 1.79% and gamma passing rates above 96.1% using the 3%/2 mm criterion suggested by TG-218. For the focusing gamma system, the differences between the calculated and measured absorbed doses were below 1.86%. The ROFs calculated by the TPS were independently confirmed within 2% using EBT3 films and a PTW60016 detector. The point dose differences were below 2.57% and gamma passing rates were above 95.3% using the 2%/1 mm criterion for the E2E tests. The coincidences between the imaging isocenter and the linac/gamma mechanical isocenter were within 0.5 mm. The image quality parameters fully complied with the manufacturer's specifications regarding the CNR, spatial resolution, and uniformity. The multi-modality radiotherapy platform complies with the CAT and AAPM commissioning criteria. The commissioning results demonstrate that this platform performs well in mechanical and dosimetry accuracy.

Wang Z ，Sun X ，Wang W ，Zhang T ，Chen L ，Duan J ，Feng S ，Chen Y ，Wei Z ，Zang J ，Xiao F ，Zhao L ... -  《-》

Validation and IMRT/VMAT delivery quality of a preconfigured fast-rotating O-ring linac system.

A fast-rotating O-ring dedicated intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT)/volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery system, the Halcyon, is delivered by default with a fully preconfigured photon beam model in the treatment planning system (TPS). This work reports on the validation and achieved IMRT/VMAT delivery quality on the system. Acceptance testing followed the vendor's installation product acceptance and was supplemented with mechanical QA. The dosimetric calibration was performed according to the IAEA TRS-398 code-of-practice, delivering 600 cGy/min at 10 cm depth, a 90 cm source-surface distance, and a 10 × 10 cm² field size. The output factors, multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) were validated by comparing measurements with the modeled values in the TPS. Validation of IMRT/VMAT was conducted following AAPM reports (MPPG 5.a, TG-119). Next, dose measurements were performed for end-to-end (E2E) checks in heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantoms using radiochromic film in multiple planes and using ionization chambers (IC) point measurements. E2E checks were performed for VMAT (cranial, rectum, spine, and head and neck) and IMRT (lung). Additionally, IROC Houston mailed dosimetry audits were performed for the beam calibration and E2E measurements using a thorax phantom (IMRT) and a head and neck phantom (VMAT). Lastly, extensive patient-specific QA was performed for the first patients of each new indication, 26 in total (nrectum = 2, nspine = 5, nlung = 5, nesophagus = 2, nhead and neck = 7, ncranial = 5), treated on the fast-rotating O-ring linac. The patient-specific QA followed the AAPM TG-218 guidelines and comprised of portal dosimetry, ArcCHECK diode array, radiochromic film dosimetry in a MultiCube phantom, and IC point measurements. The measured output factors showed an agreement <1% for fields ≥3 × 3 cm². Field sizes ≤2 × 2 cm² had a difference of <2%. The measured single-layer MLC transmission was 0.42 ± 0.01% and the measured DLG was 0.27 ± 0.22 mm. The AAPM MPPG 5.a measurements were fully compliant with the guideline criteria. Dose differences larger than 2% were found for the PDD at large depths (>25 cm). TG-119's confidence limits were achieved for the VMAT point dose measurements and for both the IMRT and VMAT radiochromic film measurements. The TG-119 confidence limits were not achieved for IMRT point dose measurements in both the target (5.9%) and the avoidance structure (6.4%). All E2E tests had point differences below 2.3% and gamma agreement scores above 90.6%. The IROC beam calibration audit showed agreement of <1%. The IROC lung IMRT audit and head and neck VMAT audit had results compliant with the IROC Houston's credentialing criteria. All IMRT and VMAT plans selected for patient-specific QA were within the action limits suggested by TG-218. The fast-rotating O-ring linac and its preconfigured TPS are compliant with the international commissioning criteria of AAPM MPPG 5.a and AAPM TG-119. E2E measurements on heterogeneous anthropomorphic phantoms were within clinically acceptable tolerances. IROC Houston's audits satisfied the credentialing criteria. This work comprises the first extensive dataset reporting on the preconfigured fast-rotating O-ring linac.

De Roover R ，Crijns W ，Poels K ，Michiels S ，Nulens A ，Vanstraelen B ，Petillion S ，De Brabandere M ，Haustermans K ，Depuydt T ... -  《-》

Dosimetric evaluation of a treatment planning system using the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) validation tests.

Verifying the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithm is considered one of the most critical steps in radiotherapy treatment for delivering an accurate dose to the patient. This work aimed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the treatment planning system (TPS) algorithms; the AAA (v. 15.6), AXB (v. 15.6) and eMC (v. 15.6) following the AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) validation tests package in a Varian iX Linear Accelerator (Linac). A series of tests were developed based on the MPPG 5.a. on a Varian's Eclipse TPS (v. 15.6) (Varian Medical Systems). First, the basic photon and electron tests were validated by comparing the TPS calculated dose with the measurements. Next, for heterogeneity tests, we verified the Computed Tomography number to electron density (CT-to-ED) curve by comparing it with the baseline values, and TPS calculated point doses beyond heterogeneous media were compared to the measurements. Finally, for IMRT/VMAT dose validation tests, clinical reference plans were re-calculated on ArcCheck's virtual phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) and exported to the Linac for delivery using the ArcCheck dosimetry system. All validation tests were evaluated following the MPPG 5.a recommended tolerances. In basic dose validation tests, the TPS calculated depth dose profiles agreed well with the measurements, with a minimum gamma passing rate of 95% at 2%/2 mm criteria. However, disagreements are seen in the build-up and penumbra region. Results for most point doses in homogeneous water phantoms were within the MPPG 5.a tolerance. For the heterogeneity tests, the CT-to-ED curve was established, and calculated point doses were all within 3% of the measurements for heterogeneous media for both photon algorithms at three energies. These results are within the MPPG5.a the recommended tolerance of 3%. Moreover, for electron beams, the differences between the calculated and measured point doses averaged 5% and 7%, but were just within the MPPG 5.a tolerance of 7%. For IMRT and VMAT validation tests using a gamma criteria of a 2%/2 mm, IMRT plans showed maximum and minimum passing rates of 98.2% and 97.4%, respectively. Whereas VMAT plans showed maximum and minimum passing rates of 100% and 94.3%, respectively. We conclude that the dosimetric accuracy of the Eclipse TPS (v15.6) algorithm is adequate for clinical use. The MPPG 5.a tests are valuable for evaluating dose calculation accuracy and are very useful for TPS upgrade checks, commissioning tests, and routine TPS QA.

Yousif YAM ，Zifodya J 《-》

Initial clinical experience with ArcCHECK for IMRT/VMAT QA.

Many devices designed for the purpose of performing patient-specific IMRT/VMAT QA are commercially available. In this work we report our experience and initial clinical results with the ArcCHECK. The ArcCHECK consists of a cylindrical array of diode detectors measuring entry and exit doses. The measured result is a cumulative dose displayed as a 2D matrix. The detector array requires both an absolute dose calibration, and a calibration of the detector response, relative to each other. In addition to the calibrations suggested by the manufacturer, various tests were performed in order to assess its stability and performance prior to clinical introduction. Tests of uniformity, linearity, and repetition rate dependence of the detector response were conducted and described in this work. Following initial test-ing, the ArcCHECK device was introduced in the clinic for routine patient-specific IMRT QA. The clinical results from one year of use were collected and analyzed. The gamma pass rates at the 3%/3 mm criterion were reported for 3,116 cases that included both IMRT and VMAT treatment plans delivered on 18 linear accelera-tors. The gamma pass rates were categorized based on the treatment site, treatment technique, type of MLCs, operator, ArcCHECK device, and LINAC model. We recorded the percent of failures at the clinically acceptable threshold of 90%. In addition, we calculated the threshold that encompasses two standard deviations (2 SD) (95%) of QAs (T95) for each category investigated. The commissioning measurements demonstrated that the device performed as expected. The uniformity of the detector response to a constant field arc delivery showed a 1% standard deviation from the mean. The variation in dose with changing repetition rate was within 1 cGy of the mean, while the measured dose showed a linear relation with delivered MUs. Our initial patient QA results showed that, at the clinically selected passing criterion, 4.5% of cases failed. On average T95 was 91%, rang-ing from 73% for gynecological sites to 96.5% for central nervous system sites. There are statistically significant differences in passing rates between IMRT and VMAT, high-definition (HD) and non-HD MLCs, and different LINAC models (p-values << 0.001). An additional investigation into the failing QAs and a com-parison with ion-chamber measurements reveals that the differences observed in the passing rates between the different studied factors can be largely explained by the field size dependence of the device. Based on our initial experience with the ArcCHECK, our passing rates are, on average, consistent with values reported in the AAPM TG-119. However, the significant variations between QAs that were observed based on the size of the treatment fields may need to be corrected to improve the specificity and sensitivity of the device.

Aristophanous M ，Suh Y ，Chi PC ，Whittlesey LJ ，LaNeave S ，Martel MK ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》

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

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.

Jacqmin DJ ，Bredfeldt JS ，Frigo SP ，Smilowitz JB ... -  《Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics》