Beam energy metrics for the acceptance and quality assurance of Halcyon linear accelerator. Issue 7 (27th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gao, Song; Chetvertkov, Mikhail A.; Cai, Bin; Dwivedi, Abhishek; Mihailidis, Dimitris; Ray, Xenia; Netherton, Tucker; Court, Laurence E.; Simon, William E.; Balter, Peter A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 22:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: 121
• Page End: 127
• Publication Date: 2021-05-27
• Subjects: acceptance and QA -- Halcyon linear accelerator -- ionization chamber array -- monitoring energy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13281
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Establish and compare two metrics for monitoring beam energy changes in the Halcyon platform and evaluate the accuracy of these metrics across multiple Halcyon linacs. Method: The first energy metric is derived from the diagonal normalized flatness (FDN ), which is defined as the ratio of the average measurements at a fixed off‐axis equal distance along the open profiles in two diagonals to the measurement at the central axis with an ionization chamber array (ICA). The second energy metric comes from the area ratio (AR) of the quad wedge (QW) profiles measured with the QW on the top of the ICA. Beam energy is changed by adjusting the magnetron current in a non‐clinical Halcyon. With D10cm measured in water at each beam energy, the relationships between FDN or AR energy metrics to D10cm in water is established with linear regression across six energy settings. The coefficients from these regressions allow D10cm (FDN ) calculation from FDN using open profiles and D10cm (QW) calculation from AR using QW profiles. Results: Five Halcyon linacs from five institutions were used to evaluate the accuracy of the D10cm (FDN ) and the D10cm (QW) energy metrics by comparing to the D10cm values computed from the treatment planning system (TPS) and D10cm measured in water. For the five linacs, the D10cm (FDN ) reported by the ICA based on FDN from open profiles agreed with that calculated by TPS within –0.29 ± 0.23% and 0.61% maximum discrepancy; the D10cm (QW) reported by the QW profiles agreed with that calculated by TPS within –0.82 ± 1.27% and –2.43% maximum discrepancy. Conclusion: The FDN ‐based energy metric D10cm (FDN ) can be used for acceptance testing of beam energy, and also for the verification of energy in periodic quality assurance (QA) processes.