skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-149: Electron Beam Profile Differences Between Elekta MLCi2 and Elekta Agility Treatment Heads

Abstract

Purpose: To report and investigate observed differences in electron beam profiles at various energies/applicators between Elekta MLCi2 and Agility treatment head on Elekta Infinity LINAC Methods: When we upgraded from MLCi2 to Agility on one of our Elekta Infinity LINAC's, electron beam PDDs and profiles were acquired for comparison purpose. All clinical electron energies (6/9/12/15/12/18 MeV) and electron applicators (6/10/14/20/25 square) were included in measurement. PDDs were acquired at 100 SSD in water (PTW MP3 water tank) with a plane-parallel ion chamber (PTW Roos). X and Y Profiles were acquired using IC Profiler (Sun Nuclear Corp.) at 1cm and maximum PDD depths (water equivalent). Results: All PDD curves match very well between MLCi2 and Agility treatment head. However, some significant differences on electron profiles were found. On Agility, even after increasing the default auto-tracking offset values for backup diaphragms in Y and MLC in X by 2.8 cm (the maximum allowed change is 3.0 cm), electron profiles still have rounder shoulders comparing to corresponding MLCi2 profiles. This difference is significantly more pronounced at larger applicators (20 and 25 square), for all electron energies. Conclusion: The significant design change between MLCi2 and Agility beam limiting device seems to affect exit electronmore » beam profiles. In IEC1217 X direction, the main change on Agility is the removal of the original MLCi2 X backup diaphragms and replacing it with MLC leaves; In Y direction, the main change is the radius and materials on Y backup diaphragms.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]
  1. Sutter Medical Foundation, Roseville, CA 95661 (United States)
  2. Sutter Shared Services S3, Sacramento, CA (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22339902
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 41; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2014 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
07 ISOTOPES AND RADIATION SOURCES; DIAPHRAGM; ELECTRON BEAMS; HEAD; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Wu, C, and Hatcher, C. SU-E-T-149: Electron Beam Profile Differences Between Elekta MLCi2 and Elekta Agility Treatment Heads. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4888479.
Wu, C, & Hatcher, C. SU-E-T-149: Electron Beam Profile Differences Between Elekta MLCi2 and Elekta Agility Treatment Heads. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4888479.
Wu, C, and Hatcher, C. Sun . "SU-E-T-149: Electron Beam Profile Differences Between Elekta MLCi2 and Elekta Agility Treatment Heads". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4888479.
@article{osti_22339902,
title = {SU-E-T-149: Electron Beam Profile Differences Between Elekta MLCi2 and Elekta Agility Treatment Heads},
author = {Wu, C and Hatcher, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To report and investigate observed differences in electron beam profiles at various energies/applicators between Elekta MLCi2 and Agility treatment head on Elekta Infinity LINAC Methods: When we upgraded from MLCi2 to Agility on one of our Elekta Infinity LINAC's, electron beam PDDs and profiles were acquired for comparison purpose. All clinical electron energies (6/9/12/15/12/18 MeV) and electron applicators (6/10/14/20/25 square) were included in measurement. PDDs were acquired at 100 SSD in water (PTW MP3 water tank) with a plane-parallel ion chamber (PTW Roos). X and Y Profiles were acquired using IC Profiler (Sun Nuclear Corp.) at 1cm and maximum PDD depths (water equivalent). Results: All PDD curves match very well between MLCi2 and Agility treatment head. However, some significant differences on electron profiles were found. On Agility, even after increasing the default auto-tracking offset values for backup diaphragms in Y and MLC in X by 2.8 cm (the maximum allowed change is 3.0 cm), electron profiles still have rounder shoulders comparing to corresponding MLCi2 profiles. This difference is significantly more pronounced at larger applicators (20 and 25 square), for all electron energies. Conclusion: The significant design change between MLCi2 and Agility beam limiting device seems to affect exit electron beam profiles. In IEC1217 X direction, the main change on Agility is the removal of the original MLCi2 X backup diaphragms and replacing it with MLC leaves; In Y direction, the main change is the radius and materials on Y backup diaphragms.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4888479},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 41,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Sun Jun 01 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}
  • Purpose The purpose of this work is to publish beam data from Elekta Synergy(R) linear accelerators with Agility(TM) MLC for total skin electron beam (TSEB) therapy using the HDRE1 (High Dose Rate Electron 6MeV) energy. Method & Materials The optimal gantry angles for TSEB were determined using ion chamber measurements along a vertical profile at 450cm SSD. After gantry angles were chosen, field uniformity was measured over the entire treatment area. Uniformity was measured with and without the patient support device, allowing the dosimetric effect of the support device to be determined. Beam output and PDD were measured at themore » calibration point (450cm SSD) for a dual beam using a parallel plate chamber in solid water. These measurements were repeated with the chamber and phantom rotated about the patient isocenter at various angles, in order to measure the contribution from oblique beams. This technique provides a precise measurement of the treatment skin dose (TSD). Lastly, ion chamber measurements were verified by film and diodes. Results The optimal gantry angle for 450 cm SSD was determined to be 90±16°. This achieved uniformity better than 96% on the vertical axis, and 92% along the horizontal axis. HDRE1 was calibrated to deliver 10 cGy/MU at standard geometry (100 cm SSD, 1.2 cm depth). Thus at TSEB geometry (450 cm SSD, 0.1 cm depth) the output of the AP dual field was measured to be 0.35 cGy/MU. The TSD of a 20 cm radius cylinder for six (equally, 60° spaced) dual fields was measured to be 1.19 cGy/MU. Percent Depth Dose data for the AP dual field and TSD are shown in Figure 2. Conclusion This paper provides a modern procedure for commissioning TSEB therapy on a linear accelerator, and clinical beam data for the Elekta Synergy(R) with Agility(TM) MLC.« less
  • Purpose: Historically, beam matching of similar Linear Accelerators has been accomplished by sending beam data to the manufacturer to match at their factory. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that fine beam matching can be carried out on-site as part of the acceptance test, with similar or better results. Methods: Initial scans of a 10 × 10 Percent depth dose (PDD) and a 40 × 40 beam profile at the depth of Dmax, for 6MV and 10 MV were taken to compare with the standard beam data from the Versa. The energy was then adjusted and the beammore » steered to achieve agreement between the depth dose and the horns of the beam profile. This process was repeated until the best agreement between PDD and profiles was achieved. Upon completion, all other clinical data were measured to verify match. This included PDD, beam profiles, output factors and Wedge factors. For electron beams PDD’s were matched and the beam profiles verified for the final beam energy. Confirmatory PDD and beam profiles for clinical field sizes, as well as Output Factors were measured. Results: The average difference in PDD’s for 6MV and 10MV were within 0.4% for both wedged and open fields. Beam profile comparisons over the central 80% of the field, at multiple depths, show agreement of 0.8% or less for both wedged and open fields. Average output factor agreement over all field sizes was 0.4% for 6MV and 0.2 % for 10MV. Wedge factors agreement was less than 0.6% for both photon energies over all field sizes. Electron PDD agreed to 0.5mm. Cone ratios agreed to 1% or less. Conclusion: This work indicates that beam matching can be carried out on-site simply and quickly. The results of this beam matching can achieve similar or better results than factory matching.« less
  • Purpose: Elekta Infinity is the one of the latest generation LINAC with unique features. Two Infinity LINACs are recently commissioned at our institution. The dosimetric and mechanical characteristics of the machines are presented. Methods: Both Infinity LINACs with Agility MLC (160 leaves with 0.5 cm leaf width) are configured with five electron energies (6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV) and two photon energies (6 and 15 MV). One machine has additional photon energy (10 MV). The commissioning was performed by following the manufacturer's specifications and AAPM TG recommendations. Beam data of both electron and photon beams are measured withmore » scanning ion chambers and linear diode array. Machines are adjusted to have the dosimetrically equivalent characteristics. Results: The commissioning of mechanical and imaging system meets the tolerances by TG recommendations. The PDD{sub 10} of various field sizes for 6 and 15 MV shows < 0.5% difference between two machines. For each electron beams, R{sub 80} matches with < 0.4 mm difference. The symmetry and flatness agree within 0.8% and 0.9% differences for photon beams, respectively. For electron beams, the differences of the symmetry and flatness are within 1.2% and 0.8%, respectively. The mean inline penumbras for 6, 10, and 15 MV are respectively 5.1±0.24, 5.6±0.07, and 5.9±0.10 mm for 10x10 cm at 10 cm depth. The crossline penumbras are larger than inline penumbras by 2.2, 1.4, and 1.0 mm, respectively. The MLC transmission factor with interleaf leakage is 0.5 % for all photon energies. Conclusion: The dosimetric and mechanical characteristics of two Infinity LINACs show good agreements between them. Although the Elekta Infinity has been used in many institutions, the detailed characteristics of the machine have not been reported. This study provides invaluable information to understand the Infinity LINAC and to compare the quality of commissioning data for other LINACs.« less
  • Purpose: To implement VMAT in RayStation with the Elekta Synergy linac with the new Agility MLC, and to utilize the same vendor softwares to determine the optimum Elekta VMAT machine parameters in RayStation for accurate modeling and robust delivery. Methods: iCOMCat is utilized to create various beam patterns with user defined dose rate, gantry, MLC and jaw speed for each control point. The accuracy and stability of the output and beam profile are qualified for each isolated functional component of VMAT delivery using ion chamber and Profiler2 with isocentric mounting fixture. Service graphing on linac console is used to verifymore » the mechanical motion accuracy. The determined optimum Elekta VMAT machine parameters were configured in RayStation v4.5.1. To evaluate the system overall performance, TG-119 test cases and nine retrospective VMAT patients were planned on RayStation, and validated using both ArcCHECK (with plug and ion chamber) and MapCHECK2. Results: Machine output and profile varies <0.3% when only variable is dose rate (35MU/min-600MU/min). <0.9% output and <0.3% profile variation are observed with additional gantry motion (0.53deg/s–5.8deg/s both directions). The output and profile variation are still <1% with additional slow leaf motion (<1.5cm/s both direction). However, the profile becomes less symmetric, and >1.5% output and 7% profile deviation is seen with >2.5cm/s leaf motion. All clinical cases achieved comparable plan quality as treated IMRT plans. The gamma passing rate is 99.5±0.5% on ArcCheck (<3% iso center dose deviation) and 99.1±0.8% on MapCheck2 using 3%/3mm gamma (10% lower threshold). Mechanical motion accuracy in all VMAT deliveries is <1°/1mm. Conclusion: Accurate RayStation modeling and robust VMAT delivery is achievable on Elekta Agility for <2.5cm/s leaf motion and full range of dose rate and gantry speed determined by the same vendor softwares. Our TG-119 and patient results have provided us with the confidence to use VMAT clinically.« less
  • Purpose: The increasing application of VMAT demands a more efficient workflow and QA solution. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of performing VMAT QA measurements on one linac for plans treated on other beam-matched Elekta Agility linacs. Methods: A single model was used to create 24 clinically approved VMAT plans (12 head-and-neck and 12 prostate using 6MV and 10MV respectively) on Pinnacle v9.10 (Philips, Einhoven, Netherlands). All head-and-neck plans were delivered on three beam-matched machines while all prostate cases were delivered on two beam-matched 10MV Agility machines. All plans were delivered onto PTW Octavius 4D phantom with 1500 detectormore » array (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). Reconstructed volume doses were then compared with the Pinnacle reference plans in Verisoft 6.1 under 3%/3mm gamma criteria at local dose. Plans were considered clinically acceptable if >90% of the voxels passing the gamma criteria. Results: All measurements were passed (3D gamma passing rate >90%) and the result shows that the mean difference of 3D gamma of 12 head-and-neck cases is 1.2% with standard deviation of 0.6%. While for prostate cases, the mean difference of 3D gamma is 0.9% with standard deviation of 0.7%. Maximum difference of 3D gamma of all measurements between beam-matched machines is less than 2.5%. The differences of passing rates between different machines were statistically insignificant (p>0.05). Conclusion. The result suggests that ther Conclusion: The result suggests that there exists a 3D gamma threshold, in our case 92.5%, above which the VMAT QA performed in any one of beam-matched machine will also pass in another one. Therefore, VMAT QA efficiency may be increased and phantom set up time can be saved by implementing such method. A constant performance across all beam matched machines must be maintained to make this QA approach feasible.« less