Acceptance and verification of the Halcyon‐Eclipse linear accelerator‐treatment planning system without 3D water scanning system. Issue 10 (25th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gao, Song; Netherton, Tucker; Chetvertkov, Mikhail A.; Li, Yuting; Court, Laurence E.; Simon, William E.; Shi, Jie; Balter, Peter A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 111
• Page End: 117
• Publication Date: 2019-09-25
• Subjects: acceptance and commissioning -- Halcyon linear accelerator -- ionization chamber array; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12719
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: We tested whether an ionization chamber array (ICA) and a one‐dimensional water scanner (1DS) could be used instead of a three‐dimensional water scanning system (3DWS) for acceptance testing and commissioning verification of the Varian Halcyon–Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS). The Halcyon linear accelerator has a single 6‐MV flattening‐filter‐free beam and a nonadjustable beam model for the TPS. Beam data were measured with a 1DS, ICA, ionization chambers, and electrometer. Acceptance testing and commissioning were done simultaneously by comparing the measured data with TPS‐calculated percent‐depth‐dose (PDD) and profiles. The ICA was used to measure profiles of various field sizes (10‐, 20‐, and 28 cm 2 ) at depths of dmax (1.3 cm), 5‐, 10‐, and 20 cm. The 1DS was used for output factors (OFs) and PDDs. OFs were measured with 1DS for various fields (2–28 cm 2 ) at a source‐to‐surface distance of 90 cm. All measured data were compared with TPS‐calculations. Profiles, off‐axis ratios (OAR), PDDs and OFs were also measured with a 3DWS as a secondary check. Profiles between the ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) at various depths across the fields indicated that the maximum discrepancies in high‐dose and low‐dose tail were within 2% and 3%, respectively, and the maximum distance‐to‐agreement in the penumbra region was <3 mm. The largest OAR differences between ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) values were 0.23% (−0.25%) for a 28 × 28 cm 2 field, and the largest point‐by‐point PDD differences between 1DS and TPS (1DS and 3DWS) were −0.41% ± 0.12% (−0.32% ± 0.17%) across the fields. Both OAR and PDD showed the beam energy is well matched to the TPS model. The average ratios of 1DS‐measured OFs to the TPS (1DS to 3DWS) values were 1.000 ± 0.002 (0.999 ± 0.003). The Halcyon–Eclipse system can be accepted and commissioned without the need for a 3DWS.