Long‐term experience of MPC across multiple TrueBeam linacs: MPC concordance with conventional QC and sensitivity to real‐world faults. Issue 8 (13th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pearson, Michael; Eaton, David; Greener, Tony
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 21:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 224
• Page End: 235
• Publication Date: 2020-08-13
• Subjects: automated QC -- linac quality control (QC) -- linear accelerator -- machine performance check (MPC) -- quality assurance; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12950
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an automated Quality Control (QC) tool that is integrated into the TrueBeam and Halcyon linear accelerators (Linacs), utilizing the imaging systems to verify the Linac beam and geometry. This work compares the concordance of daily MPC results with conventional QC tests over a 3‐year period for eight Linacs in order to assess the sensitivity of MPC in detecting faults. The MPC output measurements were compared with the monthly ionization chamber measurements for 6 and 10 MV photon beams and 6, 9, 12, 16, and 18 MeV electron beams. All 6 MV Beam and Geometry (6MVBG) MPC test failures were analyzed to determine the failure rate and the number of true and false negative results, using the conventional QC record as the reference. The concordance between conventional QC test failures and MPC test failures was investigated. The mean agreement across 1933 MPC output and monthly comparison chamber measurements for all beam energies was 0.2%, with 97.8% within 1.5%, and a maximum difference of 2.9%. Of the 5000–6000 MPC individual test parameter results for the 6MVBG test, the highest failure rate was BeamOutputChange (0.5%), then BeamCenterShift (0.3%), and was ≤ 0.1% for the remaining parameters. There were 50 true negative and 27 false negative out of tolerance MPC results, with false negatives resolved by repeating MPC or by independent measurement. The analysis of conventional QC failures demonstrated that MPC detected all failures, except occasions when MPC reported output within tolerance, a result of the MPC–chamber response variation. The variation in MPC output versus chamber measurement indicates MPC is appropriate for daily output constancy but not for the measurement of absolute output. The comparison of the 6MVBG results and conventional records provides evidence that MPC is a sensitive method of performing beam and mechanical checks in a clinical setting.