Independent validation of machine performance check for the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs for daily quality assurance. (17th July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Yuting; Netherton, Tucker; Nitsch, Paige L.; Gao, Song; Klopp, Ann H.; Balter, Peter A.; Court, Laurence E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 19:Number 5(2018)
• Page Start: 375
• Page End: 382
• Publication Date: 2018-07-17
• Subjects: Halcyon -- MPC -- TrueBeam; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12391
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: 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.