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

Title: SU-F-T-305: Clinical Effects of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) Values Between Matched Varian Truebeam (TB) Linacs

Abstract

Purpose: The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is an important parameter to be measured for dynamic beam delivery of modern linacs, like the Varian Truebeam (TB). The clinical effects of DLG-values on IMRT and/or VMAT commissioning of two “matched” TB linacs will be presented.Methods and Materials: The DLG values on two TB linacs were measured for all energy modalities (filtered and FFF-modes) as part of the dynamic delivery mode commissioning (IMRT and/or VMAT. After the standard beam data was modeled in eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and validated, IMRT validation was performed based on TG1191 benchmark, IROC Head-Neck (H&N) phantom and sample of clinical cases, all measured on both linacs. Although there was a single-set of data entered in the TPS, a noticeable difference was observed for the DLG-values between the linacs. The TG119, IROC phantom and selected patient plans were furnished with DLG-values of TB1 for both linacs and the delivery was performed on both TB linacs for comparison. Results: The DLG values of TB1 was first used for both linacs to perform the testing comparisons. The QA comparison of TG119 plans revealed a great dependence of the results to the DLG-values used for the linac for all energy modalitiesmore » studied, especially when moving from 3%/3mm to 2%/2mm γ-analysis. Conclusion: The DLG-values have a definite influence on the dynamic dose, delivery that increases with the plan complexity. We recommend that the measured DLG-values are assigned to each of the “matched” linacs, even if a single set of beam data describes multiple linacs. The user should perform a detail test of the dynamic delivery of each linac based on end-to-end benchmark suites like TG119 and IROC phantoms.1Ezzel G., et al., “IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.” Med. Phys. 36:5359–5373 (2009). partly supported by CAMC Cancer Center and Alliance Oncology.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Medical Physics Solutions, LLC, Charleston, WV (United States)
  2. CAMC Cancer Center, Charleston, WV (United States)
  3. Saint Thomas Hospital, Murfreesboro, TN (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22648913
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; COMMISSIONING; DELIVERY; DOSIMETRY; LINEAR ACCELERATORS; PHANTOMS; PLANNING; RADIOTHERAPY

Citation Formats

Mihailidis, D, Mallah, J, and Zhu, D. SU-F-T-305: Clinical Effects of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) Values Between Matched Varian Truebeam (TB) Linacs. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956490.
Mihailidis, D, Mallah, J, & Zhu, D. SU-F-T-305: Clinical Effects of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) Values Between Matched Varian Truebeam (TB) Linacs. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956490.
Mihailidis, D, Mallah, J, and Zhu, D. 2016. "SU-F-T-305: Clinical Effects of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) Values Between Matched Varian Truebeam (TB) Linacs". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956490.
@article{osti_22648913,
title = {SU-F-T-305: Clinical Effects of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) Values Between Matched Varian Truebeam (TB) Linacs},
author = {Mihailidis, D and Mallah, J and Zhu, D},
abstractNote = {Purpose: The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is an important parameter to be measured for dynamic beam delivery of modern linacs, like the Varian Truebeam (TB). The clinical effects of DLG-values on IMRT and/or VMAT commissioning of two “matched” TB linacs will be presented.Methods and Materials: The DLG values on two TB linacs were measured for all energy modalities (filtered and FFF-modes) as part of the dynamic delivery mode commissioning (IMRT and/or VMAT. After the standard beam data was modeled in eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and validated, IMRT validation was performed based on TG1191 benchmark, IROC Head-Neck (H&N) phantom and sample of clinical cases, all measured on both linacs. Although there was a single-set of data entered in the TPS, a noticeable difference was observed for the DLG-values between the linacs. The TG119, IROC phantom and selected patient plans were furnished with DLG-values of TB1 for both linacs and the delivery was performed on both TB linacs for comparison. Results: The DLG values of TB1 was first used for both linacs to perform the testing comparisons. The QA comparison of TG119 plans revealed a great dependence of the results to the DLG-values used for the linac for all energy modalities studied, especially when moving from 3%/3mm to 2%/2mm γ-analysis. Conclusion: The DLG-values have a definite influence on the dynamic dose, delivery that increases with the plan complexity. We recommend that the measured DLG-values are assigned to each of the “matched” linacs, even if a single set of beam data describes multiple linacs. The user should perform a detail test of the dynamic delivery of each linac based on end-to-end benchmark suites like TG119 and IROC phantoms.1Ezzel G., et al., “IMRT commissioning: Multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119.” Med. Phys. 36:5359–5373 (2009). partly supported by CAMC Cancer Center and Alliance Oncology.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956490},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To develop a framework for accurate electron Monte Carlo dose calculation. In this study, comprehensive validations of vendor provided electron beam phase space files for Varian TrueBeam Linacs against measurement data are presented. Methods: In this framework, the Monte Carlo generated phase space files were provided by the vendor and used as input to the downstream plan-specific simulations including jaws, electron applicators, and water phantom computed in the EGSnrc environment. The phase space files were generated based on open field commissioning data. A subset of electron energies of 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 MeV and open and collimatedmore » field sizes 3 × 3, 4 × 4, 5 × 5, 6 × 6, 10 × 10, 15 × 15, 20 × 20, and 25 × 25 cm{sup 2} were evaluated. Measurements acquired with a CC13 cylindrical ionization chamber and electron diode detector and simulations from this framework were compared for a water phantom geometry. The evaluation metrics include percent depth dose, orthogonal and diagonal profiles at depths R{sub 100}, R{sub 50}, R{sub p}, and R{sub p+} for standard and extended source-to-surface distances (SSD), as well as cone and cut-out output factors. Results: Agreement for the percent depth dose and orthogonal profiles between measurement and Monte Carlo was generally within 2% or 1 mm. The largest discrepancies were observed within depths of 5 mm from phantom surface. Differences in field size, penumbra, and flatness for the orthogonal profiles at depths R{sub 100}, R{sub 50}, and R{sub p} were within 1 mm, 1 mm, and 2%, respectively. Orthogonal profiles at SSDs of 100 and 120 cm showed the same level of agreement. Cone and cut-out output factors agreed well with maximum differences within 2.5% for 6 MeV and 1% for all other energies. Cone output factors at extended SSDs of 105, 110, 115, and 120 cm exhibited similar levels of agreement. Conclusions: We have presented a Monte Carlo simulation framework for electron beam dose calculations for Varian TrueBeam Linacs. Electron beam energies of 6 to 20 MeV for open and collimated field sizes from 3 × 3 to 25 × 25 cm{sup 2} were studied and results were compared to the measurement data with excellent agreement. Application of this framework can thus be used as the platform for treatment planning of dynamic electron arc radiotherapy and other advanced dynamic techniques with electron beams.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this project was to develop a process that utilizes the onboard kV and MV electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) to perform rapid acceptance testing (AT) of linacs in order to improve efficiency and standardize AT equipment and processes. Methods: In this study a Varian TrueBeam linac equipped with an amorphous silicon based EPID (aSi1000) was used. The conventional set of AT tests and tolerances was used as a baseline guide, and a novel methodology was developed to perform as many tests as possible using EPID exclusively. The developer mode on Varian TrueBeam linac was used tomore » automate the process. In the current AT process there are about 45 tests that call for customer demos. Many of the geometric tests such as jaw alignment and MLC positioning are performed with highly manual methods, such as using graph paper. The goal of the new methodology was to achieve quantitative testing while reducing variability in data acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the results. The developed process was validated on two machines at two different institutions. Results: At least 25 of the 45 (56%) tests which required customer demo can be streamlined and performed using EPIDs. More than half of the AT tests can be fully automated using the developer mode, while others still require some user interaction. Overall, the preliminary data shows that EPID-based linac AT can be performed in less than a day, compared to 2–3 days using conventional methods. Conclusions: Our preliminary results show that performance of onboard imagers is quite suitable for both geometric and dosimetric testing of TrueBeam systems. A standardized AT process can tremendously improve efficiency, and minimize the variability related to third party quality assurance (QA) equipment and the available onsite expertise. Research funding provided by Varian Medical Systems. Dr. Sasa Mutic receives compensation for providing patient safety training services from Varian Medical Systems, the sponsor of this study.« less
  • Purpose: To show that a single model for Portal Domisetry (PD) can be established for beam-matched TrueBeam™ linacs that are equipped with the DMI imager (43×43cm effective area). Methods: Our department acquired 6 new TrueBeam™s, 4 “Slim” and 2 “Edge” models. The Slims were equipped with 6 and 10MV photons, and the Edges with 6MV. MLCs differed between the Slims and Edges (Millennium 120 vs HD-MLC respectively). PD model was created from data acquired using a single linac (Slim). This includes maximum field size profile, as well as output factors and acquired measured fluence using the DMI imager. All identicalmore » linacs were beam-matched, profiles were within 1% at maximum field size at a variety of depths. The profile correction file was generated from 40×40 profile acquired at 5cm depth, 95cm SSD, and was adjusted for deviation at the field edges and corners. The PD model and profile correction was applied to all six TrueBeam™s and imagers. A variety of jaw only and sliding window (SW) MLC test fields, as well as TG-119 and clinical SW and VMAT plans were run on each linac to validate the model. Results: For 6X and 10X, field by field comparison using 3mm/3% absolute gamma criteria passed 90% or better for all cases. This was also true for composite comparisons of TG-199 and clinical plans, matching our current department criteria. Conclusion: Using a single model per photon energy for PD for the TrueBeam™ equipped with a DMI imager can produce clinically acceptable results across multiple identical and matched linacs. It is also possible to use the same PD model despite different MLCs. This can save time during commissioning and software updates.« less
  • Purpose: To evaluate the effects of MLC modeling after commissioning the Varian TrueBeam LINAC in Pinnacle version 9.2. Methods: Stepand-shoot IMRT QAs were investigated when we observed our measured absolute dose results using ion chamber (Capintec PR-05P) were uncharacteristically low; about 4–5% compared to doses calculated by Pinnacle{sup 3} (Phillips, Madison, WI). This problem was predominant for large and highly modulated head and neck (HN) treatments. Intuitively we knew this had to be related to shortcomings in the MLC modeling in Pinnacle. Using film QA we were able to iteratively adjust the MLC parameters. We confirmed results by re-testing fivemore » failed IMRT QA patients; and ion chamber measurements were verified in Quasar anthropomorphic phantom. Results: After commissioning the LINAC in Pinnacle version 9.2, the MLC transmission for 6X, 10X and 15X were 2.0%, 1.7% and 2.0%, respectively, and additional Interleaf leakage for all three energies was 0.5%. These parameters were obtained from profiles scanned with an Edge detector (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) during machine commissioning. A Verification testing with radiographic EDR2 film (Kodak, Rochester, NY) measurement was performed by creating a closed MLC leaf pattern and analyzing using RIT software (RIT, Colorado Springs, CO). This reduced MLC transmission for 6X, 10X and 15X to 0.7%, 0.9% and 0.9%, respectively; while increasing additional Interleaf leakage for all three energies to 1.0%. Conclusion: Radiographic film measurements were used to correct MLC transmission values for step and shoot IMRT fields used in Pinnacle version 9.2. After adjusting the MLC parameters to correlate with the film QA, there was still very good agreement between the Pinnacle model and commissioning data. Using the same QA methodology, we were also able to improve the beam models for the Varian C-series linacs, Novalis-Tx, and TrueBeam M-120 linacs.« less
  • Lung tumours move due to respiratory motion. This is managed during planning by acquiring a 4DCT and capturing the excursion of the GTV (gross tumour volume) throughout the breathing cycle within an IGTV (Internal Gross Tumour Volume) contour. Patients undergo a verification cone-beam CT (CBCT) scan immediately prior to treatment. 3D reconstructed images do not consider tumour motion, resulting in image artefacts, such as blurring. This may lead to difficulty in identifying the tumour on reconstructed images. It would be valuable to create a 4DCBCT reconstruction of the tumour motion to confirm that does indeed remain within the planned IGTV.more » CBCT projections of a Quasar Respiratory Motion Phantom are acquired in Treatment mode (half-fan scan) on a Varian TrueBeam accelerator. This phantom contains a mobile, low-density lung insert with an embedded 3cm diameter tumour object. It is programmed to create a 15s periodic, 2cm (sup/inf) displacement. A Varian Real-time Position Management (RPM) tracking-box is placed on the phantom breathing platform. Breathing phase information is automatically integrated into the projection image files. Using in-house Matlab programs and RTK (Reconstruction Tool Kit) open-source toolboxes, the projections are re-binned into 10 phases and a 4DCBCT scan reconstructed. The planning IGTV is registered to the 4DCBCT and the tumour excursion is verified to remain within the planned contour. This technique successfully reconstructs 4DCBCT images using clinical modes for a breathing phantom. UBC-BCCA ethics approval has been obtained to perform 4DCBCT reconstructions on lung patients (REB#H12-00192). Clinical images will be accrued starting April 2014.« less