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

Title: SU-F-J-179: Commissioning Dosimetric Data of a New 2.5 Megavoltage Imaging Beam from a TrueBeam Linear

Abstract

Purpose: Recently a new 2.5 megavoltage imaging beam has become available in a TrueBeam linear accelerator for image guidance. There is limited information available related to the beam characteristics. Commissioning dosimetric data of the new imaging is necessary for configuration of the beam in a treatment planning system in order to calculate imaging doses to patients resulting from this new imaging beam. The purpose of this study is to provide measured commissioning data recommended for a beam configuration in a treatment planning system. Methods: A recently installed TrueBeam linear accelerator is equipped with a new low energy photon beam with a nominal energy of 2.5 MV which provides better image quality in addition to other therapeutic megavoltage beams. Dosimetric characteristics of the 2.5 MV are measured for commissioning. An ionization chamber was used to measure dosimetric data including depth-dose curves and dose profiles at different depths for field sizes ranging from 5×5 cm{sup 2} to 40×40 cm{sup 2}. Results: Although the new 2.5 MV beam is a flattening-filter-free (FFF) beam, its dose profiles are much flatter compared to a 6 MV FFF beam. The dose decrease at 20 cm away from the central axis is less than 30% for amore » 40×40 cm{sup 2} field. This moderately lower dose at off-axis distances benefits the imaging quality. The values of percentage depth-dose (PDD) curves are 53% and 63% for 10×10 cm{sup 2} and 40×40 cm{sup 2} fields respectively. The measured beam output is 0.85 cGy/MU for a reference field size at depth 5 cm obtained according to the AAPM TG-51 protocol. Conclusion: This systematically measured commissioning data is useful for configuring the new imaging beam in a treatment planning system for patient imaging dose calculations resulting from the application of this 2.5 MV beam which is commonly set as a default in imaging procedures.« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22634776
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; COMMISSIONING; DEPTH DOSE DISTRIBUTIONS; IMAGES; IONIZATION CHAMBERS; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; PATIENTS; PHOTON BEAMS; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Ding, G. SU-F-J-179: Commissioning Dosimetric Data of a New 2.5 Megavoltage Imaging Beam from a TrueBeam Linear. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956087.
Ding, G. SU-F-J-179: Commissioning Dosimetric Data of a New 2.5 Megavoltage Imaging Beam from a TrueBeam Linear. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956087.
Ding, G. 2016. "SU-F-J-179: Commissioning Dosimetric Data of a New 2.5 Megavoltage Imaging Beam from a TrueBeam Linear". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956087.
@article{osti_22634776,
title = {SU-F-J-179: Commissioning Dosimetric Data of a New 2.5 Megavoltage Imaging Beam from a TrueBeam Linear},
author = {Ding, G},
abstractNote = {Purpose: Recently a new 2.5 megavoltage imaging beam has become available in a TrueBeam linear accelerator for image guidance. There is limited information available related to the beam characteristics. Commissioning dosimetric data of the new imaging is necessary for configuration of the beam in a treatment planning system in order to calculate imaging doses to patients resulting from this new imaging beam. The purpose of this study is to provide measured commissioning data recommended for a beam configuration in a treatment planning system. Methods: A recently installed TrueBeam linear accelerator is equipped with a new low energy photon beam with a nominal energy of 2.5 MV which provides better image quality in addition to other therapeutic megavoltage beams. Dosimetric characteristics of the 2.5 MV are measured for commissioning. An ionization chamber was used to measure dosimetric data including depth-dose curves and dose profiles at different depths for field sizes ranging from 5×5 cm{sup 2} to 40×40 cm{sup 2}. Results: Although the new 2.5 MV beam is a flattening-filter-free (FFF) beam, its dose profiles are much flatter compared to a 6 MV FFF beam. The dose decrease at 20 cm away from the central axis is less than 30% for a 40×40 cm{sup 2} field. This moderately lower dose at off-axis distances benefits the imaging quality. The values of percentage depth-dose (PDD) curves are 53% and 63% for 10×10 cm{sup 2} and 40×40 cm{sup 2} fields respectively. The measured beam output is 0.85 cGy/MU for a reference field size at depth 5 cm obtained according to the AAPM TG-51 protocol. Conclusion: This systematically measured commissioning data is useful for configuring the new imaging beam in a treatment planning system for patient imaging dose calculations resulting from the application of this 2.5 MV beam which is commonly set as a default in imaging procedures.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956087},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • 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 flattenedmore » 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 Multiplication-Sign 10 to 400 Multiplication-Sign 400 mm{sup 2}. 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 P{sub ion} 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 P{sub ion} 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 Multiplication-Sign 40 cm{sup 2}. The mean penumbra of crossplane flattened photon beams at collimator angle of 0 Degree-Sign is measured from 5.88 {+-} 0.09 to 5.99 {+-} 0.13 mm from 4 to 15 MV at 10 cm depth of 100 Multiplication-Sign 100 mm{sup 2}. The mean penumbra of crossplane beams at collimator angle of 0 Degree-Sign 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 Multiplication-Sign 5 cm{sup 2}. 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 imaging dosimetric 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.« less
  • 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):more » 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.« less
  • Purpose: Many times a set of multiple Varian-Truebeam (TB) linacs are acquired by an institution. Since “beam matching” is an important requirement for many facilities, we developed a strategy to perform a “simultaneous” commissioning between multiple linacs.Methods and Materials: We first commissioned the required photon beam data for eclipse on the 1st TB for all the energy modalities with a beam scanning system, while integrated measurements for output factors, of all field sizes (from 1×1 to 40×40cm{sup 2}) were conducted on the 2nd TB. Care was exercised during small field dosimetry so the appropriate detectors were used with data takenmore » between two detectors be “linked” to a larger field size (4×4cm{sup 2}) with the “daisy-chaining” technique via: OF=[M-PTW(fs)×(M-PTW(4×4))-1]×[MA12s(4×4)×(M-A12S(10×10))−1]. For all energy modalities, data that span the entire range of field size, was repeated on the next TB linac, for verification. The primarily energy-dependent dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) which was measured separately on each TB. The modeled data was validated with special measurements conducted on both linacs during commissioning. Results: Our data agreed with the “TB representative beam data” to within 0.5% for all energy modalities and field sizes ≥3×3cm2. Sample depth-doses and cross-profiles of a 3×3cm2 between the linacs agreeing to within 1% between linacs. The measured DLGs were quite different with a uniform difference of 1.3% between the two linacs. The measured DLG values are independent of the average dose rate and medium used for the measurements. Conclusion: A comprehensive method of commissioning identical Varian-TB linacs, outlining the critical issues, especially small field dosimetry and DLG. The dosimetric effect of different DLG values, when it comes to, dynamic delivery and data comparisons will be presented. The dependence of DLG value on the measurement medium (in-air vs. water) or dose rate used will also be discussed. This work was supported by CAMC Cancer Center and Alliance Oncology.« less
  • Purpose: Latest generation linear accelerators (linacs), i.e., TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and its stereotactic counterpart, TrueBeam STx, have several unique features, including high-dose-rate flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon modes, reengineered electron modes with new scattering foil geometries, updated imaging hardware/software, and a novel control system. An evaluation of five TrueBeam linacs at three different institutions has been performed and this work reports on the commissioning experience. Methods: Acceptance and commissioning data were analyzed for five TrueBeam linacs equipped with 120 leaf (5 mm width) MLCs at three different institutions. Dosimetric data and mechanical parameters were compared. These included measurementsmore » of photon beam profiles (6X, 6XFFF, 10X, 10XFFF, 15X), photon and electron percent depth dose (PDD) curves (6, 9, 12 MeV), relative photon output factors (Scp), electron cone factors, mechanical isocenter accuracy, MLC transmission, and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). End-to-end testing and IMRT commissioning were also conducted. Results: Gantry/collimator isocentricity measurements were similar (0.27-0.28 mm), with overall couch/gantry/collimator values of 0.46-0.68 mm across the three institutions. Dosimetric data showed good agreement between machines. The average MLC DLGs for 6, 10, and 15 MV photons were 1.33 {+-} 0.23, 1.57 {+-} 0.24, and 1.61 {+-} 0.26 mm, respectively. 6XFFF and 10XFFF modes had average DLGs of 1.16 {+-} 0.22 and 1.44 {+-} 0.30 mm, respectively. MLC transmission showed minimal variation across the three institutions, with the standard deviation <0.2% for all linacs. Photon and electron PDDs were comparable for all energies. 6, 10, and 15 MV photon beam quality, %dd(10){sub x} varied less than 0.3% for all linacs. Output factors (Scp) and electron cone factors agreed within 0.27%, on average; largest variations were observed for small field sizes (1.2% coefficient of variation, 10 MV, 2 Multiplication-Sign 2 cm{sup 2}) and small cone sizes (<1% coefficient of variation, 6 Multiplication-Sign 6 cm{sup 2} cone), respectively. Conclusions: Overall, excellent agreement was observed in TrueBeam commissioning data. This set of multi-institutional data can provide comparison data to others embarking on TrueBeam commissioning, ultimately improving the safety and quality of beam commissioning.« less
  • Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) allows fast delivery of stereotactic radiotherapy. However, the discrepancies between the calculated and delivered dose distributions due to respiratory motion and dynamic multileaf collimators (MLCs) interplay are not avoidable. The purpose of this study is to investigate RapidArc lung SBRT treatment delivered by the flattening filter-free (FFF) beam and flattened beam with Varian TrueBeam machine. CIRS Dynamic Thorax Phantom with in-house made lung tumor insertion was CT scanned both in free breathing and 4DCT. 4DCT was used to determine the internal target volume. The free breathing CT scan was used for treatment planning. A 5more » mm margin was given to ITV to generate a planning target volume. Varian Eclipse treatment planning was used to generate RapidArc plans based on the 6 MV flattened beam and 6MV FFF beam. The prescription dose was 48 Gy in 4 fractions. At least 95% of PTV was covered by the prescribed dose. The RapidArc plans with 6 MV flattened beam and 6MV FFF beam were delivered with Varian TrueBeam machine. The dosimetric measurements were performed with Gafchromic XR-RV3 film, which was placed in the lung tumor insertion. The interplay between the dynamic MLC-based delivery of VMAT and the respiratory motion of the tumor degraded target coverage and created undesired hot or cold dose spots inside the lung tumor. Lung SBRT RapidArc treatments delivered by the FFF beam of TrueBeam linear accelerator is superior to the flattened beam. Further investigation will be performed by Monte Carlo simulation.« less