Measurement validation of treatment planning for a MR‐Linac. Issue 7 (29th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Xinfeng; Paulson, Eric S.; Ahunbay, Ergun; Sanli, Aydin; Klawikowski, Slade; Li, X. Allen
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 7(2019)
• Page Start: 28
• Page End: 38
• Publication Date: 2019-06-29
• Subjects: beam model verification -- electron returning effect -- MR‐guided RT -- MR‐Linac -- treatment planning system; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12651
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The magnetic field can cause a nonnegligible dosimetric effect in an MR‐Linac system. This effect should be accurately accounted for by the beam models in treatment planning systems (TPS). The purpose of the study was to verify the beam model and the entire treatment planning and delivery process for a 1.5 T MR‐Linac based on comprehensive dosimetric measurements and end‐to‐end tests. Material and methods: Dosimetry measurements and end‐to‐end tests were performed on a preclinical MR‐Linac (Elekta AB) using a multitude of detectors and were compared to the corresponding beam model calculations from the TPS for the MR‐Linac. Measurement devices included ion chambers (IC), diamond detector, radiochromic film, and MR‐compatible ion chamber array and diode array. The dose in inhomogeneous phantom was also verified. The end‐to‐end tests include the generation, delivery, and comparison of 3D and IMRT plan with measurement. Results: For the depth dose measurements with Farmer IC, micro IC and diamond detector, the absolute difference between most measurement points and beam model calculation beyond the buildup region were <1%, at most 2% for a few measurement points. For the beam profile measurements, the absolute differences were no more than 1% outside the penumbra region and no more than 2.5% inside the penumbra region. Results of end‐to‐end tests demonstrated that three 3D static plans with single 5 × 10 cm 2 fields (at gantry angle 0°, 90° and 270°) and two IMRT plans successfully passed gamma analysis with clinical criteria. The dose difference in the inhomogeneous phantom between the calculation and measurement was within 1.0%. Conclusions: Both relative and absolute dosimetry measurements agreed well with the TPS calculation, indicating that the beam model for MR‐Linac properly accounts for the magnetic field effect. The end‐to‐end tests verified the entire treatment planning process.