Dosimetric and mechanical equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators. Issue 12 (18th October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ghazal, Mohammed; Södergren, Lars; Westermark, Mathias; Söderström, Julia; Pommer, Tobias
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 21:Issue 12(2020)
• Page Start: 43
• Page End: 53
• Publication Date: 2020-10-18
• Subjects: beam‐matching -- DLG and jaw calibration -- energy‐matching; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13058
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: To investigate and improve the level of equivalency of Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators (linacs) in energy‐, dosimetric leaf gap‐ (DLG) and jaw calibration. Methods: Eight linacs with four photon energies: 6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF, and 15 MV, and three electron energies (on two linacs): 6, 9, and 12 MeV were commisioned and beam‐matched. Initially, symmetry of lateral profiles was calibrated for maximum field size. Energy‐matching was then performed for photons by adjusting diagonal profiles at maximum field size and depth of maximum dose to coincide with the reference linac, and for electrons by matching the range at percentage depth of ionization of 90%, 80%, and 50%. Calibration of DLG was performed for 6 MV and evaluated among the linacs. The relationship between DLG and the Gap value was investigated. A method using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) was developed and implemented for jaw calibration. Results: Symmetry calibration for photons (electrons) was within 1% (0.7%), further improving the vendor's acceptance criteria. Photon and electron energy‐matching was within 0.5% and 0.1 mm, respectively. Calibration of DLG was within 0.032 mm among the linacs and utilizing the relationship between DLG and the Gap value resulted in an empirical calibration method which was implemented to simplify DLG adjustment. Using EPID‐based method of calibration, evaluation of the jaw‐positioning among the linacs for 30 cm × 30 cm field size was within 0.4 mm and in the junction area within 0.2 mm. Dose delivery error of VMAT‐plans were at least 99.2% gamma pass rate (1%, 1 mm). Conclusions: High level of equivalency, beyond clinically accepted criteria, of TrueBeam linacs could be achieved which reduced dose delivery systematic errors and increased confidence in interchanging patients among linacs.