Evaluation of the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy using AAPM TG 119 protocol.

The aim of this work was to evaluate the conformity of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and verify the accuracy of the planning and delivery system used in this work based on the AAPM TG-119 protocol. The Eclipse 13.6 treatment planning system (TPS) was used to plan the TG-119 test suite, which included four test cases: MultiTarget, Prostate, Head/Neck, and C-Shape for IMRT and VMAT techniques with 6 MV and 10 MV acceleration voltages. The results were assessed and discussed in terms of the TG-119 protocol and the results of previous studies. In addition, point dose and planar dose measurements were done using a semiflex ion chamber and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), respectively. The planned doses of all test cases met the criteria of the TG-119 protocol, except those for the spinal cord of the C-Shape hard case. There were no significant differences between the treatment planning doses and the doses given in the TG-119 report, with p-values ranging from 0.974 to 1 (p > 0.05). Doses to the target volumes were similar in the IMRT and VMAT plans, but the organs at risk (OARs) doses were different depending on the test case. The planning results showed that IMRT is more conformal than VMAT in certain cases. For the point dose measurements, the confidence limit (CLpoint) of 0.030 and 0.021 were better than the corresponding values of 0.045 and 0.047 given in the TG-119 report for high-dose and low-dose areas, respectively. Regarding the planar dose measurements, the CLplanar value of 0.38 obtained in this work was lower than that given in the TG-119 report (12.4). It is concluded that the dosimetry measurements performed in this study showed better confidence limits than those provided in the TG 119 report. IMRT remains more conformal in certain circumstances than the more progressive VMAT. When selecting the method of delivering a dose to the patient, several factors must be considered, including the radiotherapy technique, energy, treatment site, and tumour geometry.

Interinstitutional beam model portability study in a mixed vendor environment.

A 6 MV flattened beam model for a Varian TrueBeamSTx c-arm treatment delivery system in RayStation, developed and validated at one institution, was implemented and validated at another institution. The only parameter value adjustments were to accommodate machine output at the second institution. Validation followed MPPG 5.a. recommendations, with particular attention paid to IMRT and VMAT deliveries. With this minimal adjustment, the model passed validation across a broad spectrum of treatment plans, measurement devices, and staff who created the test plans and executed the measurements. This work demonstrates the possibility of using a single template model in the same treatment planning system with matched machines in a mixed vendor environment.

Small-field dosimetry of TrueBeamTM flattened and flattening filter-free beams: A multi-institutional analysis.

PURPOSE: Detector-dependent interinstitutional variations of the beam data may lead to uncertainties of the delivered dose to patients. Here we evaluated the inter-unit variability of the flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam data of multiple TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems) linear accelerators focusing on the small-field dosimetry. METHODS: The beam data of 6- and 10-MV photon beams with and without flattening filter measured for modeling of an iPLAN treatment planning system (BrainLAB) were collected from 12 institutions - ten HD120 Multileaf Collimator (MLC) and two Millennium120 MLC. Percent-depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and detector output factors (OFdet ) measured with different detectors were evaluated. To investigate the detector-associated effects, we evaluated the inter-unit variations of the OFdet before and after having applied the output correction factors provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Reports Series no. 483. RESULTS: PDD measured with a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 showed that the data measured using an ionization chamber had variations exceeding 1% from the median values. The maximum difference from median value was 2.87% for 10 MV photon beam. The maximum variations of the penumbra width for OCR with 10 × 10 mm2 field size were 0.97 mm. The OFdet showed large variations exceeding 15% for a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 . When the output correction factors were applied to the OFdet , the variations were greatly reduced. The relative difference of almost all field output factors were within ± 5% from the median field output factors. CONCLUSION: In this study, the inter-unit variability of small-field dosimetry was evaluated for TrueBeam linear accelerators. The variations were large at a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 , and most occurred in a detector-dependent manner.

Impact of detector selections on inter-institutional variability of flattening filter-free beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators.

This study evaluates the type of detector influencing the inter-institutional variability in flattening filter-free (FFF) beam-specific parameters for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators (Varian Medical Systems,Palo Alto, CA, USA). Twenty-four beam data sets, including the percent depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and output factor (OPF) for modeling within the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system, were collected from 19 institutions. Although many institutions collected the data using CC13 (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) or PTW31010 semiflex (PTW Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany) ionization chambers, some institutions used diode detectors, diamond detectors, and ionization chambers with smaller cavities. The OCR data included penumbra width, full width at half maximum (FWHM), and FFF beam-specific parameters, including unflatness and slope. The data measured by CC13/PTW31010 ionization chambers were compared with those measured by all other detectors. PDD data demonstrated the variations within ±1% at the dose fall-off region deeper than peak depth. The penumbra widths of the OCR measured with the CC13/PTW31010 detectors were significantly larger than those measured with all other detectors (P < 0.05). Especially the EDGE detector (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL, USA) and the microDiamond detectors (model 60019; PTW Freiburg) demonstrated much smaller penumbra values compared to those of the CC13/PTW31010 detectors for the 30 × 30 mm2 field. There was no difference in the FWHM, unflatness, and slope parameters between the values for the CC13/PTW31010 detectors and all other detectors. OPF curves demonstrated small variations, and the relative difference from the mean value of each data point was almost within 1% for all field sizes. Although the penumbra region exhibited detector-dependent variations, all other parameters showed tiny interunit variations regardless of the detector type.

Monte Carlo simulation using PRIMO code as a tool for checking the credibility of commissioning and quality assurance of 6 MV TrueBeam STx varian LINAC.

AIM: To validate and implement Monte Carlo simulation using PRIMO code as a tool for checking the credibility of measurements in LINAC initial commissioning and routine Quality Assurance (QA). Relative and absolute doses of 6 MV photon beam from TrueBeam STx Varian Linear Accelerator (LINAC) were simulated and validated with experimental measurement, Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) calculation, and golden beam. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Varian phase-space files were imported to the PRIMO code and four blocks of jaws were simulated to determine the field size of the photon beam. Water phantom was modeled in the PRIMO code with water equivalent density. Golden beam data, experimental measurement, and AAA calculation results were imported to PRIMO code for gamma comparison. RESULTS: PRIMO simulations of Percentage Depth Dose (PDD) and in-plane beam profiles had good agreement with experimental measurements, AAA calculations and golden beam. However, PRIMO simulations of cross-plane beam profiles have a better agreement with AAA calculation and golden beam than the experimental measurement. Furthermore, PRIMO simulations of absolute dose agreed well with experimental results with ±0.8% uncertainty. CONCLUSION: The PRIMO code has good accuracy and is appropriate for use as a tool to check the credibility of beam scanning and output measurement in initial commissioning and routine QA.

Calibrating TrueBeam jaws by considering collimator walkout to improve the dose uniformity at abutting field junctions.

Jaw positions on a linear accelerator are calibrated to have accurate field size values over the range of jaw positions and to have excellent junctions when matching fields. It is sufficient to have field size accuracy on the order of a millimeter for most clinical applications but good junctions require submillimeter precision and accuracy in the jaw positioning. Presented is a method to measure collimator walkout with the MV imager and a mathematical model to determine an optimal origin for calibrating jaws on the TrueBeam accelerator. The calibration procedure uses the jaw position encoders which are sufficiently accurate and precise enough to achieve a homogeneous junction dose for abutting fields.

Calculating dose from a 2.5 MV imaging beam using a commercial treatment planning system.

Patient dose from 2.5 MV images on the TrueBeam linear accelerator is not easily quantified, primarily because this beam energy is not normally modeled by commercial treatment planning systems. In this work we present the feasibility of using the Eclipse® treatment planning system to model this beam. The Acuros XB and the AAA dose calculation algorithms were tested. Profiles, PDDs, and output factors were measured for the 2.5 MV unflattened imaging beam and used for beam modeling. The algorithms were subsequently verified using MPPG 5.a guidelines. Calculated doses with both algorithms agreed with the measurement data to within the following criteria recommended for conventional therapeutic MV beams: 2% local dose-difference in the high-dose region, 3% global difference in the low-dose region, 3 mm distance to agreement in the penumbra, and a gamma pass rate of >95% for 3%/3 mm criteria. Acuros was able to accurately calculate dose through cork and bone-equivalent heterogeneities. AAA was able to accurately calculate dose through the bone-equivalent heterogeneity but did not pass within the recommended criteria for the cork heterogeneity. For the 2.5 MV imaging beam, both the AAA and Acuros algorithms provide calculated doses that agree with measured results well within the 20% criteria for imaging beams recommended by AAPM TG-180.

Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of patient-specific complicated treatment plans, including commercialized treatment planning systems (TPS) and commissioned beam data, we developed a process of quality assurance (QA) using a Monte Carlo (MC) platform. Specifically, we constructed an interface system that automatically converts treatment plan and dose matrix data in digital imaging and communications in medicine to an MC dose-calculation engine. The clinical feasibility of the system was evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dose-calculation engine based on GATE v8.1 was embedded in our QA system and in a parallel computing system to significantly reduce the computation time. The QA system automatically converts parameters in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to files for dose calculation using GATE. The system then calculates dose maps. Energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF from a TrueBeam with HD120 were modeled and commissioned. To evaluate the beam models, percentage depth dose (PDD) values, MC calculation profiles, and measured beam data were compared at various depths (Dmax , 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm), field sizes, and energies. To evaluate the feasibility of the QA system for clinical use, doses measured for clinical VMAT plans using films were compared to dose maps calculated using our MC-based QA system. RESULTS: A LINAC QA system was analyzed by PDD and profile according to the secondary collimator and multileaf collimator (MLC). Values for MC calculations and TPS beam data obtained using CC13 ion chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) were consistent within 1.0%. Clinical validation using a gamma index was performed for VMAT treatment plans using a solid water phantom and arbitrary patient data. The gamma evaluation results (with criteria of 3%/3 mm) were 98.1%, 99.1%, 99.2%, and 97.1% for energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We constructed an MC-based QA system for evaluating patient treatment plans and evaluated its feasibility in clinical practice. We observed robust agreement between dose calculations from our QA system and measurements for VMAT plans. Our QA system could be useful in other clinical settings, such as small-field SRS procedures or analyses of secondary cancer risk, for which dose calculations using TPS are difficult to verify.

Independent validation of machine performance check for the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs for daily quality assurance.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the machine performance check (MPC) on the Halcyon to detect errors, with comparison with the TrueBeam. METHODS: MPC is an automated set of quality assurance (QA) tests that use a phantom placed on the couch and the linac's imaging system(s) to verify the beam constancy and mechanical performance of the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs. In order to evaluate the beam constancy tests, we inserted solid water slabs between the beam source and the megavoltage imager to simulate changes in beam output, flatness, and symmetry. The MPC results were compared with measurements, using two-dimensional array under the same conditions. We then studied the accuracy of MPC geometric tests. The accuracies of the relative gantry offset and couch shift tests were evaluated by intentionally inserting phantom shifts, using a rotating or linear motion stage. The MLC offset and absolute gantry offset tests were assessed by miscalibrating these motions on a Halcyon linac. RESULTS: For the Halcyon system, the average difference in the measured beam output between the IC Profiler and MPC, after intentional changes, was 1.3 ± 0.5% (for changes ≤5%). For Halcyon, the MPC test failed (i.e., prevented treatment) when the beam symmetry change was over 1.9%. The accuracy of the MLC offset test was within 0.05 mm. The absolute gantry offset test was able to detect an offset as small as 0.02°. The accuracy of the absolute couch shift test was 0.03 mm. The accuracy of relative couch shift test of Halcyon was measured as 0.16 mm. CONCLUSION: We intentionally inserted errors to evaluate the ability of the MPC to identify errors in dosimetric and geometric parameters. These results showed that the MPC is sufficiently accurate to be effectively used for daily QA of the Halcyon and TrueBeam treatment devices.

Estimating the uncertainty of calculated out-of-field organ dose from a commercial treatment planning system.

Therapeutic radiation to cancer patients is accompanied by unintended radiation to organs outside the treatment field. It is known that the model-based dose algorithm has limitation in calculating the out-of-field doses. This study evaluated the out-of-field dose calculated by the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (v.11 with AAA algorithm) in realistic treatment plans with the goal of estimating the uncertainties of calculated organ doses. Photon beam phase-space files for TrueBeam linear accelerator were provided by Varian. These were used as incident sources in EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations of radiation transport through the downstream jaws and MLC. Dynamic movements of the MLC leaves were fully modeled based on treatment plans using IMRT or VMAT techniques. The Monte Carlo calculated out-of-field doses were then compared with those calculated by Eclipse. The dose comparisons were performed for different beam energies and treatment sites, including head-and-neck, lung, and pelvis. For 6 MV (FF/FFF), 10 MV (FF/FFF), and 15 MV (FF) beams, Eclipse underestimated out-of-field local doses by 30%-50% compared with Monte Carlo calculations when the local dose was <1% of prescribed dose. The accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations using Eclipse is improved when collimator jaws were set at the smallest possible aperture for MLC openings. The Eclipse system consistently underestimates out-of-field dose by a factor of 2 for all beam energies studied at the local dose level of less than 1% of prescribed dose. These findings are useful in providing information on the uncertainties of out-of-field organ doses calculated by Eclipse treatment planning system.

GATE Monte Carlo approach to heterogeneity dose distribution in small fields used in radiation therapy.

The Accurate dosage prediction in Radiation Therapy is challenging, prompting a need for precision beyond conventional clinical Treatment Planning Systems (TPS). Monte Carlo-based methods are sought for their superior accuracy. The aim of this study is to compare dose distributions between the ACUROS algorithm and the GATE platform in various tissue densities and field sizes, focusing on smaller fields. This study was initiated with a homogeneous validation of the TrueBeam STX system, using measurements obtained from the Centre Hospitalier Interregional Edith Cavell (CHIREC) in Brussels. The validation compared dosimetric functions (Percentage Depth Dose (PDD), Dose profile (DP) and Collimator scatter fraction (CSF)) employing the GAMMA index with a 2% / 2 mm criterion tolerance. Following this, heterogeneous studies examined dose distributions between the ACUROS algorithm and the GATE platform in various tissue densities and field sizes, with a specific focus on smaller fields. Simulations were conducted using both platforms on chest phantoms with heterogeneous slabs representing bone, lung, and heart, each housing a central tumor. The impact of electronic equilibrium on tumors for different small field sizes was evaluated. Results showed a remarkable 99% agreement between measurements and GATE calculations in the homogeneous validation of the TrueBeam STX system. However, in heterogeneous studies, ACUROS consistently overestimated lung doses by up to 8% compared to GATE simulation, especially evident with a flattening filter and smaller beam sizes at density interfaces. This highlights significant dose estimation discrepancies between ACUROS and GATE, emphasizing the need for precise calculations. The findings support exploring Monte Carlo-based methods for enhanced accuracy in Radiation Therapy treatment planning.

Impact of target degradation on the 6FFF output of a Varian TrueBeam Linac.

The dosimetric output of a 6FFF beam, produced from a Varian TrueBeam linac exhibited an unexpected downward trend over time that was contrary to well-established expectations. To elucidate the cause of this uncharacteristic trend, a review of the linac's quality control results over its lifetime was performed, including, constancy checks of the dosimetric output, beam energy, flatness and symmetry, and percentage depth dose characteristics. These results were supplemented with a comprehensive series of measurements including flatness and symmetry measurements with a 1D-diode array, high-resolution measurements of the photon beam's build-up region with a parallel-plate chamber and measurement of the beam's output as a function of the x-ray target position. The review of the linac's QC results and supplemental tests identified no deviations in the linac's performance from its commissioning and baseline measurements. However, the 6FFF beam output exhibited a significant dependence on the target location relative to its default position, increasing by 5.43 % with a 0.5 mm target translation, indicating that target degradation was the cause of the atypical output trend. The change in output behaviour was believed to be the result of primary electrons escaping the degraded target and interacting with the linac's monitor chamber. Replacement of the x-ray target caused the 6FFF output to realign with expected trends. Target degradation was uncovered due to a robust quality control trending database and awareness of typical output behaviour. These results demonstrate the importance of data trending to identify component failure and provide centres with knowledge to recognise this potential fault.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Machine Performance Checks as an Alternative to Winston-Lutz Quality Assurance Testing in the TrueBeam Linear Accelerator with HyperArc.

HyperArc is a preferred technique for treating brain metastases, employing a single isocenter for multiple lesions. Geometrical isocentricity in the TrueBeam linear accelerator with HyperArc is crucial. We evaluated machine performance checks (MPCs) as an alternative to the Winston-Lutz (WL) test to verify the treatment isocenter. Between January and July 2023, we assessed 53 data points using MPC and Winston-Lutz tests. The isocenter size obtained from the MPC and its sum, including the rotation-induced couch shift, were compared with the maximum total delta value from the Winston-Lutz test. The maximum total delta was 0.68 ± 0.10 mm, while the isocenter size was 0.28 ± 0.02 mm. The sum of the isocenter size and rotation-induced couch shift measured by MPC was 0.61 ± 0.03 mm. During the Winston-Lutz test (without couch rotation), the maximum total delta value was 0.56 ± 0.13 mm. A t-test analysis revealed a significant difference in the isocenter size averages between the Winston-Lutz and MPC outcomes, whereas the Pearson's correlation coefficient yielded no correlation. Our study highlights the necessity for separate MPC and Winston-Lutz tests for isocenter verification. Therefore, the Winston-Lutz test should precede stereotactic radiosurgery for isocenter verification.

Postoperative radiotherapy for right breast cancer with regional nodal irradiation utilizing the surface-guided radiotherapy based deep inspiration breath hold technique on a TrueBeam HD linear accelerator: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) has proven effective in minimizing radiation exposure to organs at risk (OARs) in right-sided breast cancer patients requiring regional nodal irradiation (RNI). However, there has been no dosimetric evaluation comparing DIBH techniques to free-breathing (FB) conditions on the TrueBeam (TB) HD linear accelerator (LINAC). To address this gap and accommodate breast cancer patients requiring RNI on the TB HD LINAC, an innovative method involving a 90-degree rotation of the regional lymph nodes' field during treatment planning was devised. CASE DESCRIPTION: The study focused on a 39-year-old woman who underwent right breast-conserving radical surgery and subsequently required postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy. Both noncontrast FB and DIBH computed tomography (CT) scans were performed using a CT simulator. Due to limitations in MLC field length, a 90-degree rotation was employed for planning the regional lymph nodes' field on the TB LINAC. Patient positioning accuracy was ensured by aligning based on body surface under both FB and DIBH conditions, facilitated by an optical surface management system (OSMS). The target volume and OARs were meet the dose limit on the TB HD LINAC. Noteworthy reductions in radiation exposure to the right lung and liver were evident with DIBH. The mean dose reduction rate for the right lung was 11.9%, while the mean dose reduction rate for the liver was 68.9%. Parameters such as V5, V20, V30, and mean dose (Dmean) also demonstrated decreases with DIBH compared to FB. CONCLUSIONS: This case report underscores the potential of TB HD LINAC for formulating treatment approaches for breast cancer involving RNI. Furthermore, it emphasizes the effectiveness of DIBH radiotherapy in mitigating doses to OARs when implemented on the TB LINAC.

Evaluation of HyperArc™ using film and portal dosimetry quality assurance.

HyperArc™ is a stereotactic radiotherapy modality designed for targeting multiple brain metastases using a single isocenter with multiple non-coplanar arcs. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of two patient-specific quality assurance methods, film and the Varian Portal Dosimetry System with Varian's HyperArc™ technique and raise important considerations in the customisation of patient-specific quality assurance to accommodate HyperArc™ delivery. Assessment criteria included gamma analysis and mean dose at full width half maximum. The minimum metastasis size, maximum off-axis distance and suitable energy were identified and validated. Patient-specific quality assurance procedures were applied to a range of clinically relevant brain metastasis plans. Initial investigation into energy selection showed no significant differences in gamma pass rates using 6MV, 6MV FFF, or 10MV FFF for metastasis sizes greater than 15 mm diameter at the isocenter. Gamma pass rates (2%/2mm) for 15 mm metastases at the isocenter for all energies were greater than 96.0% for portal dosimetry and greater than 98.7% for film. Fields of size 15 mm placed at various distances (10-70 mm) from the isocenter resulted in a maximum mean dose difference of 1.5% between film and planned. Clinically relevant plans resulted in a maximum mean dose difference for selected metastases of 1.0% between film and plan and a maximum point dose difference of 2.9% between portal dose and plan. Portal dose image prediction was a quick and convenient quality assurance tool for metastases larger than 15 mm near the isocenter but provided diminished geometrical relevance for off-axis metastases. Film QA required exacting procedures but offered the ability to assess the accuracy of geometrical targeting for off-axis metastases and provided dosimetric accuracy for metastases to well below 15 mm diameter.

Evaluation of the RadCalc collapsed cone dose calculation algorithm against measured data.

This work describes the experimental validation of the RadCalc (Lifeline software Inc, Tyler) collapsed cone dose calculation algorithm against measured data for a range of scenarios. 6 MV photon beam data were measured in a large water tank on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. These were input into the RadCalc software, in conjunction with head geometry and output calibration information, then used to create a collapsed cone beam model. The model performance was assessed by comparison against measurement, using a selection of homogeneous and inhomogeneous geometries not incorporated into the original beam model. Dose calculations generated using the collapsed cone algorithm are generally in good agreement with measurement. However, the primary collimating of the linac is not accounted for in the RadCalc model and hence dose in the corners of large fields is significantly overestimated. Percentage depth doses were within 0.5% beyond a depth of 2 cm. The dose in the build-up region was underestimated by RadCalc Version 7.1.4.1, with (Distance To Agreement) discrepancies of up to 3 mm which were corrected in Version 7.2.2.0. Beam profiles for homogeneous phantom comparisons were within 2% in the central 80% of the field with out of field dose underestimated by no more than 3%. Dose comparisons in heterogeneous geometries were acceptable and generally within 3.5%. The largest observed differences were found at density interfaces and a result of the RadCalc dose resolution of 2 mm against 1 mm measured. Absolute dose comparisons demonstrated that RadCalc agreed with measurement to within 1.2% under homogeneous media irradiation geometries. For static beam IMRT deliveries agreement was within 2% or 2 mm of measured data, and for complex VMAT deliveries within 3% or 2 mm. The implementation of the (model-based) photon collapsed cone algorithm in RadCalc shows generally good agreement with measured data over a range of simple and complex scenarios considered.

Patient specific evaluation of breathing motion induced interplay effects.

PURPOSE: In lung SABR, interplay between target motion and dynamically changing beam parameters can affect the target coverage. To identify the potential need for motion-management techniques, a comprehensive methodology for pre-treatment estimation of interplay effects has been implemented. METHODS: In conjunction with an alpha-version of VeriSoft and OCTAVIUS 4D (PTW-Freiburg, Germany), a method is presented to calculate a virtual, motion-simulated 3D dose distribution based on measurement data acquired in a stationary phantom and a subsequent correction with time-dependent target-motion patterns. In-house software has been developed to create user-defined motion patterns based on either simplistic or real patient-breathing patterns including the definition of the exact beam starting phase. The approach was validated by programmed couch and phantom motion during beam delivery. Five different breathing traces with extremely altered beam-on phases (0 % and 50 % respiratory phase) and a superior-inferior motion altitude of 25 mm were used to probe the influence of interplay effects for 14 lung SABR plans. Gamma analysis (2 %/2mm) was used for quantification. RESULTS: Validation measurements resulted in >98 % pass rates. Regarding the interplay effect evaluation, gamma pass rates of <92 % were observed for sinusoidal breathing patterns with <25 number of breaths per delivery time (NBs) and realistic patterns with <18 NBs. CONCLUSION: The potential influence of interplay effects on the target coverage is highly dependent on the patient's breathing behaviour. The presented moving-platform-free approach can be used for verification of ITV-based treatment plans to identify whether the clinical goals are achievable without explicit use of a respiratory management technique.

Particular issues to be considered in small field dosimetry for TrueBeam STx commissioning.

This study aims to report the relevant issues concerning small fields in the commissioning of a TrueBeam STx for photon energies of 6MV, 10MV, 6FFF, and 10FFF. Percent depth doses, profiles, and field output factors were measured according to the beam model configuration of the treatment planning system. Multiple detectors were used based on the IAEA TRS-483 protocol as well as EBT3 radiochromic film. Analytical Anisotropic and Acuros XB algorithms, were configured and validated through basic dosimetry comparisons and end-to-end clinical tests.

Application of a Comprehensive Treatment Planning Test for Credentialing Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and RapidArc in a TrueBeam Linear Accelerator Setup.

An extended version of task group report (TG)-119 dosimetric tests was introduced and tested on the TrueBeam linear accelerator setup. Treatment plan results and quality assurance (QA) results of RapidArc (RA) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) were compared to understand the limitation and efficacy of the RA and IMRT system of the linear accelerator. Test structure sets were drawn on OCTAVIUS four-dimensional (4D) phantom computed tomography scan data for this study. We generated treatment plans based on the specified goal in the Eclipse™ treatment planning system using RA and IMRT in the study phantom. We used the same planning objectives for RA and IMRT techniques. Planar dose verification was performed using electronic portal imaging device and OCTAVIUS 4D phantom. The treatment log file was further analyzed using Pylinac (V2.4.0 (Open Source Code library available on Github, runs under Python programming language)) to compare the dosimetric outcome of RA and IMRT. Dose to the planning target volume (PTV) 1-5 and organ at risk (OAR) were analyzed in this study for the efficiency comparison of RA and IMRT. The primary objective was accomplished by adhering to the dose constraints associated with PTV 2 and the OAR. RA and IMRT also met the secondary objective. The tertiary goal of dose delivery to PTV 4 was met with RA but not IMRT. This study can be utilized to compare different institutions' planning and patient-specific QA (PSQA) procedures. The findings of this study were in line with the published works of the literature. A multi-institutional planning and delivery accuracy audit can be built using this structure and set of planning objectives having similar PSQA phantom. The TG-119 report incorporated test challenges that were combined in a single study set and a single plan. This reduces the complexity of performing the original TG-119 tests, whereas keeping the challenges as introduced in the TG-119 report. This study's planning and dosimetric results could be further utilized for dosimetry audit with any institute having a linear accelerator and OCTAVIUS 4D phantom for PSQA.

The spatial accuracy of ring-mounted halcyon linac versus C-arm TrueBeam linac for single-isocenter/multi-target SBRT treatment.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment of oligometastatic lesions via single-isocenter/multi-target (SIMT) plan is more efficient than using multi-isocenter/multitarget SBRT. This study quantifies the spatial positioning accuracy of 2 commercially available LINAC systems for SIMT treatment pertaining to the potential amplification of error as a function of the target's distance-to-isocenter. We compare the Ring-Gantry Halcyon LINAC equipped with the fast iterative conebeam-CT (iCBCT) for image-guided SIMT treatment, and the SBRT-dedicated C-Arm TrueBeam with standard pretreatment CBCT imaging. For both systems, Sun Nuclear's MultiMet Winston-Lutz Cube phantom with 6 metallic BBs distributed at different planes up to 7 cm away from the isocenter was used. The phantom was aligned and imaged via CBCT, and then couch corrections were applied. To treat all 6 BBs, an Eclipse 10-field 3D-conformal Field-in-Field (2×2 cm2 MLC field to each BB) plan for varying gantry, collimator, and couch (TrueBeam only) positions was developed for both machines with 6MV-FFF beam. The plan was delivered through ARIA once a week. The EPID images were analyzed via Sun Nuclear's software for spatial positioning accuracy. On TrueBeam, the treatment plan was delivered twice: once with 3DoF translational corrections and once with PerfectPitch 6DoF couch corrections. The average 3D spatial positioning accuracy was 0.55 ± 0.30 mm, 0.54 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.56 ± 0.28 mm at isocenter, and 0.59 ± 0.30 mm, 0.69 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.70 ± 0.35 mm at 7 cm distance-to-isocenter for Halcyon, TrueBeam 3DoF, and TrueBeam 6DoF, respectively. This suggests there are no clinically significant deviations of spatial uncertainty between the platforms with the distance-to-isocenter. On both platforms, our weekly independent measurements demonstrated the reproducibility for less than 1.0 mm positional accuracy of off-axis targets up to 7 cm from the isocenter. Due to this, no additional PTV-margin is suggested for lesions within 7 cm of isocenter. This study confirms that Halcyon can deliver similar positional accuracy to SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam to off-axis targets up to 7 cm from isocenter. These results further benchmark the spatial uncertainty of our extensively used SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam LINAC for SIMT SBRT treatments.