Truebeam

Abstract: Purpose To investigate dosimetric characteristics of a new linear accelerator designed to deliver flattened, as well as flattening filter-free (FFF), beams. To evaluate the accuracy of beam modeling under physical conditions using an anisotropic analytical algorithm. Methods and Materials Dosimetric data including depth dose curves, profiles, surface dose, penumbra, out-of-field dose, output, total and scatter factors were examined for four beams (X6, X6FFF, X10, and X10FFF) of Varian’s TrueBeam machine. Beams modeled by anisotropic analytical algorithm were compared with measured dataset. Results FFF beams have lower mean energy (tissue-phantom ratio at the depths of 20 and 10 cm (TPR 20/10): X6, 0.667; X6FFF, 0.631; X10, 0.738; X10FFF, 0.692); maximum dose is located closer to the surface; and surface dose increases by 10%. FFF profiles have sharper but faster diverging penumbra. For small fields and shallow depths, dose outside a field is lower for FFF beams; however, the advantage fades with increasing phantom scatter. Output increases 2.26 times for X6FFF and 4.03 times for X10FFF and is less variable with field size; collimator exchange effect is reduced. A good agreement between modeled and measured data is observed. Criteria of 2% depth-dose and 2-mm distance-to-agreement are always met. Conclusion Reference dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam photon bundles were obtained, and successful modeling of the beams was achieved.

Abstract: This work investigated the differences between multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning accuracy determined using either log files or electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) and then assessed the possibility of reducing patient specific quality control (QC) via phantom-less methodologies. In-house software was developed, and validated, to track MLC positional accuracy with the rotational and static gantry picket fence tests using an integrated electronic portal image. This software was used to monitor MLC daily performance over a 1 year period for two Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators, with the results directly compared with MLC positions determined using leaf trajectory log files. This software was validated by introducing known shifts and collimator errors. Skewness of the MLCs was found to be 0.03 ± 0.06° (mean ±1 standard deviation (SD)) and was dependent on whether the collimator was rotated manually or automatically. Trajectory log files, analysed using in-house software, showed average MLC positioning errors with a magnitude of 0.004 ± 0.003 mm (rotational) and 0.004 ± 0.011 mm (static) across two TrueBeam units over 1 year (mean ±1 SD). These ranges, as indicated by the SD, were lower than the related average MLC positioning errors of 0.000 ± 0.025 mm (rotational) and 0.000 ± 0.039 mm (static) that were obtained using the in-house EPID based software. The range of EPID measured MLC positional errors was larger due to the inherent uncertainties of the procedure. Over the duration of the study, multiple MLC positional errors were detected using the EPID based software but these same errors were not detected using the trajectory log files. This work shows the importance of increasing linac specific QC when phantom-less methodologies, such as the use of log files, are used to reduce patient specific QC. Tolerances of 0.25 mm have been created for the MLC positional errors using the EPID-based automated picket fence test. The software allows diagnosis of any specific leaf that needs repair and gives an indication as to the course of action that is required.

Abstract: Purpose: A TrueBeam linear accelerator (TB-LINAC) is designed to deliver traditionally flattened and flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams. Although it has been widely adopted in many clinics for patient treatment, limited information is available related to commissioning of this type of machine. In this work, commissioning data of three units were measured, and multiunit comparison was presented to provide valuable insights and reliable evaluations on the characteristics of the new treatment system. Methods: The TB-LINAC is equipped with newly designed waveguide, carousel assembly, monitoring control, and integrated imaging systems. Each machine in this study has 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 MV flattened photon beams, and 6 MV and 10 MV FFF photon beams as well as 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 22 MeV electron beams. Dosimetric characteristics of the three new TB-LINAC treatment units are systematically measured for commissioning. High-resolution diode detectors and ion chambers were used to measure dosimetric data for a range of field sizes from 10 × 10 to 400 × 400 mm2. The composite dosimetric data of the three units are presented in this work. The commissioning of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), image-guided radiation therapy, and gating systems are also illustrated. Critical considerations of Pion of FFF photon beams and small field dosimetric measurements were investigated. Results: The authors found all PDDs and profiles matched well among the three machines. Beam data were quantitatively compared and combined through average to yield composite beam data. The discrepancies among the machines were quantified using standard deviation (SD). The mean SD of the PDDs among the three units is 0.12%, and the mean SD of the profiles is 0.40% for 10 MV FFF open fields. The variations of Pion of the chamber CC13 is 1.2 ± 0.1% under 6 MV FFF and 2.0 ± 0.5% under 10 MV FFF from dmax to the 18 cm-off-axis point at 35 cm depth under 40 × 40 cm2. The mean penumbra of crossplane flattened photon beams at collimator angle of 0° is measured from 5.88 ± 0.09 to 5.99 ± 0.13 mm from 4 to 15 MV at 10 cm depth of 100 × 100 mm2. The mean penumbra of crossplane beams at collimator angle of 0° is measured as 3.70 ± 0.21 and 4.83 ± 0.04 mm for 6 MV FFF and 10 MV FFF, respectively, at 10 cm depth with a field size of 5 × 5 cm2. The end-to-end test procedures of both IMRT and VMAT were performed for various energy modes. The mean ion chamber measurements of three units showed less than 2% between measurement and calculation; the mean MultiCube ICA measurements demonstrated over 90% pixels passing gamma analysis (3%, 3 mm, 5% threshold). The imagingdosimetric data of KV planar imaging and CBCT demonstrated improved consistency with vendor specifications and dose reduction for certain imaging protocols. The gated output verification showed a discrepancy of 0.05% or less between gating radiation delivery and nongating radiation delivery. Conclusions: The commissioning data indicated good consistency among the three TB-LINAC units. The commissioning data provided us valuable insights and reliable evaluations on the characteristics of the new treatment system. The systematically measured data might be useful for future reference.

Abstract: Purpose : Flattening filter free (FFF) beams generated by medicallinear accelerators have recently started to be used in radiotherapy clinical practice. Such beams present fundamental differences with respect to the standard filter flattened (FF) beams, making the generally used dosimetric parameters and definitions not always viable. The present study will propose possible definitions and suggestions for some dosimetric parameters for use in quality assurance of FFF beams generated by medicallinacs in radiotherapy. Methods : The main characteristics of the photon beams have been analyzed using specific data generated by a Varian TrueBeam linac having both FFF and FF beams of 6 and 10 MV energy, respectively. Results : Definitions for dose profile parameters are suggested starting from the renormalization of the FFF with respect to the corresponding FF beam. From this point the flatness concept has been translated into one of “unflatness” and other definitions have been proposed, maintaining a strict parallelism between FFF and FF parameter concepts. Conclusions : Ideas for quality controls used in establishing a quality assurance program when introducing FFF beams into the clinical environment are given here, keeping them similar to those used for standard FF beams. By following the suggestions in this report, the authors foresee that the introduction of FFF beams into a clinical radiotherapy environment will be as safe and well controlled as standard beam modalities using the existing guidelines.