The spatial accuracy of ring-mounted halcyon linac versus C-arm TrueBeam linac for single-isocenter/multi-target SBRT treatment

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment of oligometastatic lesions via single-isocenter/multi-target (SIMT) plan is more efficient than using multi-isocenter/multitarget SBRT. This study quantifies the spatial positioning accuracy of 2 commercially available LINAC systems for SIMT treatment pertaining to the potential amplification of error as a function of the target's distance-to-isocenter. We compare the Ring-Gantry Halcyon LINAC equipped with the fast iterative conebeam-CT (iCBCT) for image-guided SIMT treatment, and the SBRT-dedicated C-Arm TrueBeam with standard pretreatment CBCT imaging. For both systems, Sun Nuclear's MultiMet Winston-Lutz Cube phantom with 6 metallic BBs distributed at different planes up to 7 cm away from the isocenter was used. The phantom was aligned and imaged via CBCT, and then couch corrections were applied. To treat all 6 BBs, an Eclipse 10-field 3D-conformal Field-in-Field (2×2 cm² MLC field to each BB) plan for varying gantry, collimator, and couch (TrueBeam only) positions was developed for both machines with 6MV-FFF beam. The plan was delivered through ARIA once a week. The EPID images were analyzed via Sun Nuclear's software for spatial positioning accuracy. On TrueBeam, the treatment plan was delivered twice: once with 3DoF translational corrections and once with PerfectPitch 6DoF couch corrections. The average 3D spatial positioning accuracy was 0.55 ± 0.30 mm, 0.54 ± 0.24 mm, and 0.56 ± 0.28 mm at isocenter, and 0.59 ± 0.30 mm, 0.69 ± 0.30 mm, and 0.70 ± 0.35 mm at 7 cm distance-to-isocenter for Halcyon, TrueBeam 3DoF, and TrueBeam 6DoF, respectively. This suggests there are no clinically significant deviations of spatial uncertainty between the platforms with the distance-to-isocenter. On both platforms, our weekly independent measurements demonstrated the reproducibility for less than 1.0 mm positional accuracy of off-axis targets up to 7 cm from the isocenter. Due to this, no additional PTV-margin is suggested for lesions within 7 cm of isocenter. This study confirms that Halcyon can deliver similar positional accuracy to SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam to off-axis targets up to 7 cm from isocenter. These results further benchmark the spatial uncertainty of our extensively used SBRT-dedicated TrueBeam LINAC for SIMT SBRT treatments.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy for hippocampal-sparing prophylactic cranial irradiation: Planning comparison of Halcyon and C-arm accelerators

Background

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the dosimetry of the Halcyon in prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and hippocampal-sparing for small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

Methods

Five VMAT plans were designed on CT images of 15 patients diagnosed with SCLC and received PCI. Three plans with two full arcs were generated on the Trilogy and the TrueBeam accelerators, and flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) modes were used on TrueBeam. Two Halcyon plans with two and three full arcs were generated, referred to as H-2A and H-3A, respectively. The prescription dose was 25 Gy in 2.5-Gy fractions. The dose limit for hippocampus were D₁₀₀ ≤ 9Gy and D_max ≤ 16Gy. The Wilcoxon matched-paired signed-rank test was used to evaluate the significance of the observed differences between the five plans.

Results

H-2A plans significantly increased the D₂ of PTV, and H-3A plans showed comparable or even better target dosimetry (better conformity) compared to the three plans on C-arm accelerators. Compared to T and TB plans, the two Halcyon plans significantly reduced the D₁₀₀ and mean doses of bilateral hippocampus, the mean doses of eyeballs, and the maximum doses of lenses. D₁₀₀ of hippocampus was reduced in TrueBeam plans comparing to Trilogy plans. The FFF plans on TrueBeam also represented advantages in D_mean and D₁₀₀ of hippocampas, D_mean and D_max of eyeballs, and the D_max of lenses compared to FF plans. Halcyon plans and TrueBeam plans with FFF mode increased the MUs compared to FF plans. Comparing to H-2A, the H-3A plans exhibited additional dosimetric advantages, including D₂, CI and HI of PTV, as well as the maximum and mean doses of hippocampus and eyeballs, and the maximum doses of optic nerves and brainstem. The two Halcyon plans significantly reduced the delivery time and showed the higher gamma passing rate than the three plans of C-arm accelerators.

Conclusions

Compared with the C-arm accelerators, the dose of hippocampus and the delivery times on Halcyon are relatively significantly reduced for hippocampal-sparing PCI. Three arcs are recommended for VMAT plans with the Halcyon in hippocampal-sparing PCI.

MLC performance prognosis using a degradation model based on trajectory log data from a daily test

PURPOSE

This paper investigates the feasibility of implementing a predictive maintenance program for a multileaf collimator (MLC) based on data collected in trajectory logs (TLs) obtained by conducting a simple daily test, with the aim of minimizing unscheduled downtime.

METHODS

A dynamic field test was designed, and the TLs generated in the course of daily administration in a linear accelerator were collected to evaluate trajectory deviations of the MLC leaves as well as interlocks (COL 420219/20, COL 420207/08) reported by the machine. During this evaluation, we observed that the trajectory deviations of some leaves increased up to a threshold value beyond which certain interlocks began to appear in treatment fields in those leaves. An exponential degradation model was therefore developed to predict this drift and determine each leaf's remaining useful life (RUL). Once the applicability of the model was confirmed, we added a second accelerator equipped with an MLC with the same configuration to validate the model.

RESULTS

The model was able to predict certain COL 420219/20 interlocks resulting from primary readout/expected position discrepancies and to estimate each leaf's RUL. In total, 11 cases (8 interlocks + 3 potential interlocks avoided due to service interventions [27.3% of the total]) were detected over 7 days in advance, with no false positive results. Scheduling of service interventions several days prior to MLC failure would therefore be possible. When these types of interlocks were not predicted by the model, they were always generated by leaf motor failure. Consequently, intervention time could also be optimized by directly replacing the motor. During the study period, for these types of interlocks, our approach would have reduced downtime from 35.25 to 4.00 h (88.7%) and from 34.75 to 22.83 h (34.3%) for each accelerator, respectively. For COL 420207/08 interlocks, which are generated by primary/secondary readout discrepancies, no correlation with leaf trajectory deviation increases recorded in the TLs was found. Throughout the study period, these types of interlocks requiring service intervention, also mainly for motor replacement, represented a downtime of 9.50 h for the first accelerator (21.2% of total downtime) and by 4.33 h (11.1% of total downtime) for the second accelerator.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that by applying a predictive MLC maintenance program based on information collected in TLs, it is possible to predict certain interlocks and therefore schedule preemptive interventions to avoid their occurrence. This could optimize health-care delivery performance and minimize the loss of treatment sessions.

Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT

Background and purpose

The study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators.

Methods

A total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed.

Results

The average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles.

Conclusions

Compared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13014-022-02097-0.

RapidPlan hippocampal sparing whole brain model version 2-how far can we reduce the dose?

Whole-brain radiotherapy has been the standard palliative treatment for patients with brain metastases due to its effectiveness, availability, and ease of administration. Recent clinical trials have shown that limiting radiation dose to the hippocampus is associated with decreased cognitive toxicity. In this study, we updated an existing Knowledge Based Planning model to further reduce dose to the hippocampus and improve other dosimetric plan quality characteristics. Forty-two clinical cases were contoured according to guidelines. A new dosimetric scorecard was created as an objective measure for plan quality. The new Hippocampal Sparing Whole Brain Version 2 (HSWBv2) model adopted a complex recursive training process and was validated with five additional cases. HSWBv2 treatment plans were generated on the Varian Halcyon^TM and TrueBeam^TM systems and compared against plans generated from the existing (HSWBv1) model released in 2016. On the Halcyon^TM platform, 42 cases were re-planned. Hippocampal D_100% from HSWBv2 and HSWBv1 models had an average dose of 5.75 Gy and 6.46 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001). HSWBv2 model also achieved a hippocampal D_mean of 7.49 Gy, vs 8.10 Gy in HSWBv1 model (p < 0.001). Hippocampal D_0.03CC from HSWBv2 model was 9.86 Gy, in contrast to 10.57 Gy in HSWBv1 (p < 0.001). For PTV_3000, D_98% and D_2% from HSWBv2 model were 28.27 Gy and 31.81 Gy, respectively, compared to 28.08 Gy (p = 0.020) and 32.66 Gy from HSWBv1 (p < 0.001). Among several other dosimetric quality improvements, there was a significant reduction in PTV_3000 V_105% from 35.35% (HSWBv1) to 6.44% (HSWBv2) (p < 0.001). On 5 additional validation cases, dosimetric improvements were also observed on TrueBeam^TM. In comparison to published data, the HSWBv2 model achieved higher quality hippocampal avoidance whole brain radiation therapy treatment plans through further reductions in hippocampal dose while improving target coverage and dose conformity/homogeneity. HSWBv2 model is shared publicly.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Application of the Halcyon(2.0) IMRT Technique in Long-Course Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer

Objective: To evaluate if the Halcyon(2.0) Intensity Modulation Radiotherapy (IMRT) technique has an advantage in the long-course rectal cancer radiotherapy. Methods: A total of 20 clinical IMRT plans of Halcyon(2.0) for long-course (2Gy in 25 fractions) rectal cancer radiotherapy were randomly selected. Based on the parameters of these plans, 20 TrueBeam (with the Millennium 120 MLC) plans were redesigned, respectively. The dosimetry indexes, field complexity parameters, the Gamma Passing Rates (GPR), and the delivery time of the 2 groups of plans were obtained as measures of the plan quality, the modulation complexity, the delivery accuracy, and the delivery efficiency. The differences between the 2 groups of parameters were analyzed, with P < .05 means statistically significant. Results: In terms of dosimetry, there was no significant or clinical difference between the 2 groups in critical dosimetry parameters. The Monitor Unit of the Halcyon(2.0) fields is lower than the TrueBeam fields by 26.39, while the modulation complexity score (MCS), the mean aperture area variability (AAV), and the mean leaf sequence variability (LSV) of the Halcyon(2.0) fields were 23.8%, 20%, and 2.3% larger than those of the TrueBeam fields, respectively. Neither the ArcCheck-based GPRs nor the portal-dosimetry-based GPRs in both 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria showed the difference between the Halcyon(2.0) fields and the TrueBeam fields. The Pearson correlation coefficient between GPR(2%/2 mm) and MCS of the Halcyon(2.0) fields was 0.335, while that of the TrueBeam fields was 0.502. The mean total delivery time of the TrueBeam plans was 195.55 ± 22.86 s, while that of Halcyon(2.0) was 124.25 ± 10.42 s (P < .001), which was reduced approximatively by 36%. Conclusion: For long-course rectal cancer radiotherapy, the Halcyon(2.0) IMRT plans behave almost the same in dosimetry and delivery accuracy as the TrueBeam plans. However, the lower MU and the field modulation complexity, combined with the higher delivery efficiency, make Halcyon(2.0) a feasible and reliable platform in long-course radiotherapy for the rectal cancer.

Interinstitutional beam model portability study in a mixed vendor environment

A 6 MV flattened beam model for a Varian TrueBeamSTx c‐arm treatment delivery system in RayStation, developed and validated at one institution, was implemented and validated at another institution. The only parameter value adjustments were to accommodate machine output at the second institution. Validation followed MPPG 5.a. recommendations, with particular attention paid to IMRT and VMAT deliveries. With this minimal adjustment, the model passed validation across a broad spectrum of treatment plans, measurement devices, and staff who created the test plans and executed the measurements. This work demonstrates the possibility of using a single template model in the same treatment planning system with matched machines in a mixed vendor environment.

Technical note: GAMMORA, a free, open-source, and validated GATE-based model for Monte-Carlo simulations of the Varian TrueBeam

PURPOSE

Monte Carlo (MC) is the reference computation method for medical physics. In radiotherapy, MC computations are necessary for some issues (such as assessing figures of merit, double checks, and dose conversions). A tool based on GATE is proposed to easily create full MC simulations of the Varian TrueBeam STx.

METHODS

GAMMORA is a package that contains photon phase spaces as a pre-trained generative adversarial network (GAN) and the TrueBeam's full geometry. It allows users to easily create MC simulations for simple or complex radiotherapy plans such as VMAT. To validate the model, the characteristics of generated photons are first compared to those provided by Varian (IAEA format). Simulated data are also compared to measurements in water and heterogeneous media. Simulations of 8 SBRT plans are compared to measurements (in a phantom). Two examples of applications (a second check and interplay effect assessment) are presented.

RESULTS

The simulated photons generated by the GAN have the same characteristics (energy, position, and direction) as the IAEA data. Computed dose distributions of simple cases (in water) and complex plans delivered in a phantom are compared to measurements, and the Gamma index (3%/3mm) was always superior to 98%. The feasibility of both clinical applications is shown.

CONCLUSIONS

This model is now shared as a free and open-source tool that generates radiotherapy MC simulations. It has been validated and used for five years. Several applications can be envisaged for research and clinical purposes.

Small-field dosimetry of TrueBeamTM flattened and flattening filter-free beams: A multi-institutional analysis

PURPOSE

Detector-dependent interinstitutional variations of the beam data may lead to uncertainties of the delivered dose to patients. Here we evaluated the inter-unit variability of the flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam data of multiple TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems) linear accelerators focusing on the small-field dosimetry.

METHODS

The beam data of 6- and 10-MV photon beams with and without flattening filter measured for modeling of an iPLAN treatment planning system (BrainLAB) were collected from 12 institutions - ten HD120 Multileaf Collimator (MLC) and two Millennium120 MLC. Percent-depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and detector output factors (OFdet ) measured with different detectors were evaluated. To investigate the detector-associated effects, we evaluated the inter-unit variations of the OFdet before and after having applied the output correction factors provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Reports Series no. 483.

RESULTS

PDD measured with a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 showed that the data measured using an ionization chamber had variations exceeding 1% from the median values. The maximum difference from median value was 2.87% for 10 MV photon beam. The maximum variations of the penumbra width for OCR with 10 × 10 mm2 field size were 0.97 mm. The OFdet showed large variations exceeding 15% for a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 . When the output correction factors were applied to the OFdet , the variations were greatly reduced. The relative difference of almost all field output factors were within ± 5% from the median field output factors.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the inter-unit variability of small-field dosimetry was evaluated for TrueBeam linear accelerators. The variations were large at a field size of 5 × 5 mm2 , and most occurred in a detector-dependent manner.

Feasibility of spinal stereotactic body radiotherapy in Elekta Unity® MR-Linac

The Elekta Unity MR-Linac (MRL) is expected to benefit spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) due to the improved soft tissue contrast available with onboard MR imaging. However, the irradiation geometry and beam configuration of the MRL deviates from the conventional linear accelerator (Linac). The purpose of the study was to investigate the feasibility of spine SBRT on the MRL. Treatment plans were generated for lumbar and thoracic spines. Target and spinal cord doses were measured with two cylindrical ion chambers inserted into an anthropomorphic spine phantom. Our study indicated that the Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) could generate clinical treatment plans for the MRL that were of comparable quality to the RayStation TPS with a conventional Linac. For both Linacs the planned dose within the gross tumor volume agreed with measurements within ±3%. For the spinal cord, while the measured doses from the TrueBeam were 1.8% higher for the lumbar spine plan and 6.9% higher for thoracic spine plan, the measured doses from MRL were 0.6% lower for the lumbar spine plan and 3.9% higher for the thoracic spine plan. In conclusion, the feasibility of spine SBRT in Elekta Unity MRL has been demonstrated, however, more effort is needed for such as optimizing the online plan adaptation method.

Impact of detector selections on inter-institutional variability of flattening filter-free beam data for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators

This study evaluates the type of detector influencing the inter-institutional variability in flattening filter-free (FFF) beam-specific parameters for TrueBeam™ linear accelerators (Varian Medical Systems,Palo Alto, CA, USA). Twenty-four beam data sets, including the percent depth dose (PDD), off-center ratio (OCR), and output factor (OPF) for modeling within the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system, were collected from 19 institutions. Although many institutions collected the data using CC13 (IBA Dosimetry, Schwarzenbruck, Germany) or PTW31010 semiflex (PTW Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany) ionization chambers, some institutions used diode detectors, diamond detectors, and ionization chambers with smaller cavities. The OCR data included penumbra width, full width at half maximum (FWHM), and FFF beam-specific parameters, including unflatness and slope. The data measured by CC13/PTW31010 ionization chambers were compared with those measured by all other detectors. PDD data demonstrated the variations within ±1% at the dose fall-off region deeper than peak depth. The penumbra widths of the OCR measured with the CC13/PTW31010 detectors were significantly larger than those measured with all other detectors (P < 0.05). Especially the EDGE detector (Sun Nuclear Corp., Melbourne, FL, USA) and the microDiamond detectors (model 60019; PTW Freiburg) demonstrated much smaller penumbra values compared to those of the CC13/PTW31010 detectors for the 30 × 30 mm² field. There was no difference in the FWHM, unflatness, and slope parameters between the values for the CC13/PTW31010 detectors and all other detectors. OPF curves demonstrated small variations, and the relative difference from the mean value of each data point was almost within 1% for all field sizes. Although the penumbra region exhibited detector-dependent variations, all other parameters showed tiny interunit variations regardless of the detector type.

Feasibility of a GATE Monte Carlo platform in a clinical pretreatment QA system for VMAT treatment plans using TrueBeam with an HD120 multileaf collimator

Purpose

To evaluate the quality of patient‐specific complicated treatment plans, including commercialized treatment planning systems (TPS) and commissioned beam data, we developed a process of quality assurance (QA) using a Monte Carlo (MC) platform. Specifically, we constructed an interface system that automatically converts treatment plan and dose matrix data in digital imaging and communications in medicine to an MC dose‐calculation engine. The clinical feasibility of the system was evaluated.

Materials and Methods

A dose‐calculation engine based on GATE v8.1 was embedded in our QA system and in a parallel computing system to significantly reduce the computation time. The QA system automatically converts parameters in volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans to files for dose calculation using GATE. The system then calculates dose maps. Energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF), and 10 MV FFF from a TrueBeam with HD120 were modeled and commissioned. To evaluate the beam models, percentage depth dose (PDD) values, MC calculation profiles, and measured beam data were compared at various depths (D_max, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm), field sizes, and energies. To evaluate the feasibility of the QA system for clinical use, doses measured for clinical VMAT plans using films were compared to dose maps calculated using our MC‐based QA system.

Results

A LINAC QA system was analyzed by PDD and profile according to the secondary collimator and multileaf collimator (MLC). Values for MC calculations and TPS beam data obtained using CC13 ion chamber (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) were consistent within 1.0%. Clinical validation using a gamma index was performed for VMAT treatment plans using a solid water phantom and arbitrary patient data. The gamma evaluation results (with criteria of 3%/3 mm) were 98.1%, 99.1%, 99.2%, and 97.1% for energies of 6 MV, 10 MV, 6 MV FFF, and 10 MV FFF, respectively.

Conclusions

We constructed an MC‐based QA system for evaluating patient treatment plans and evaluated its feasibility in clinical practice. We observed robust agreement between dose calculations from our QA system and measurements for VMAT plans. Our QA system could be useful in other clinical settings, such as small‐field SRS procedures or analyses of secondary cancer risk, for which dose calculations using TPS are difficult to verify.

An EGS Monte Carlo model for Varian TrueBEAM treatment units: Commissioning and experimental validation of source parameters

In this work we have created and commissioned a Monte Carlo model of 6FFF Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator using BEAMnrc. For this purpose we have experimentally measured the focal spot size and shape of three Varian TrueBeam treatment units in 6FFF modality with a slit collimator and several depth dose and lateral beam profiles in a water phantom. The Monte Carlo model of a 6FFF TrueBeam machine was implemented with a primary electron source commissioned as a 2D Gaussian with Full Width Half Maximum selected by comparison of simulated and measured narrow beam profiles. The energy of the primary electron beam was optimized through a simultaneous fit to the measured beam depth dose profiles. Special attention was paid to evaluation of uncertainties of the selected Monte Carlo source parameters. These uncertainties were calculated by analysing the sensitivity of the commissioning process to changes in both primary beam size and energy. Both experimental and Monte Carlo commissioned focus size values were compared and found to be in excellent agreement. The commissioned Monte Carlo model reproduces within 1% accuracy the dose distributions of radiation field size from 3 cm × 3 cm to 15 cm × 15 cm.

Part I: Out-of-field dose mapping for 6X and 6X-flattening-filter-free beams on the TrueBeam for extended distances

PURPOSE

With increasing cancer treatment success rates, many patients go on to live long, productive lives following recovery. Therefore, minimizing potential side effects due to dose outside the treated field is becoming a significant consideration in radiation therapy. With many potential treatment configurations available, it is important to quantify how out-of-field dose varies with common variables such as distance from isocenter, couch angle, jaw size, and flattening-filter setting. The accurate quantification of out-of-field dose at extended distances could also benefit researchers and detector developers. While data exist for out-of-field dose from older linear accelerator (Linac) models, the phenomenon has not been described for the latest generation of machines, such as the Varian TrueBeam. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively quantify out-of-field dose for the Varian TrueBeam Linac low energy photons in a wide range of positions and treatment geometries.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Out-of-field doses were measured using two phantom setups: (a) A large volume ion chamber with a buildup sleeve to quantify head leakage and collimator scatter background dose; and (b) A farmer ion chamber in solid water to incorporate phantom scatter in addition to collimator scatter, and head leakage background dose. In both cases, the ion chamber was positioned with its length along the slowly varying transverse direction (perpendicular to the radial from isocenter). Doses were measured for four symmetric jaw settings (2 × 2 cm² , 4 × 4 cm² , 10 × 10 cm² , and 20 × 20 cm² ) for a range of distances from the isocenter (0-100 cm). The angular dependence of the out-of-field dose was measured using four different angles: 0°, 45°, 90°, and 135° with respect to the in-plane direction. All measurements were performed for both 6X and 6X-flattening-filter-free (FFF) beams.

RESULTS

The lowest out-of-field doses were observed at 60 cm away from isocenter in both in-plane and cross-plane directions for fields smaller than 10 × 10 cm² . Out-of-field dose decreased with decreasing jaw size (a factor of 4.7 for 6X-FFF and a factor of 3.1 for 6X going from 20 × 20 cm² to 2 × 2 cm² at 60 cm from isocenter in the in-plane direction). The 6X-FFF beam produced out-of-field doses as low as 64% of the 6X beam.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a comprehensive description of 6X and 6X-FFF out-of-field doses on a Varian TrueBeam Linac including measurements at a range of positions, angles, and jaw settings and with and without phantom scatter.

Part II: Verification of the TrueBeam head shielding model in Varian VirtuaLinac via out-of-field doses

PURPOSE

A good Monte Carlo model with an accurate head shielding model is important in estimating the long-term risks of unwanted radiation exposure during radiation therapy. The aim of this paper was to validate the Monte Carlo simulation of a TrueBeam linear accelerator (linac) head shielding model. We approach this by evaluating the accuracy of out-of-field dose predictions at extended distances which are comprised of scatter from within the patient and treatment head leakage and thus reflect the accuracy of the head shielding model. We quantify the out-of-field dose of a TrueBeam linac for low-energy photons, 6X and 6X-FFF beams, and compare measurements to Monte Carlo simulations using Varian VirtuaLinac that include a realistic head shielding model, for a variety of jaw sizes and angles up to a distance of 100 cm from the isocenter, in both positive and negative directions. Given the high value and utility of the VirtuaLinac model, it is critical that this model is validated thoroughly and the results be available to the medical physics community.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Simulations were done using VirtuaLinac, the GEANT4-based Monte Carlo model of the TrueBeam treatment head from Varian Medical Systems, and an in-house GEANT4-based code. VirtuaLinac included a detailed model of the treatment head shielding and was run on the Amazon Web Services cloud to generate spherical phase space files surrounding the treatment head. These phase space files were imported into the in-house code, which modeled the measurement setup with a solid water buildup, the carbon fiber couch, and the gantry stand. For each jaw size (2 × 2 cm² , 4 × 4 cm² , 10 × 10 cm² , and 20 × 20 cm² ) and angular setting (0°, 90°, 45°, 135°), the dose was calculated at intervals of 5 cm along each measurement direction.

RESULTS

For the 10 × 10 cm² jaw size, both 6X and 6X-FFF showed very good agreement between simulation and measurement in both in-plane directions, with no apparent systematic bias. The percentage deviations for these settings were as follows: (mean, STDEV, maximum) (8.34, 6.44, 24.84) for 6X and (13.21, 8.93, 35.56) for 6X-FFF. For all jaw sizes, simulation agreed well in the in-plane direction going away from the gantry, but, some deviations were observed moving toward the gantry at larger distances. At larger distances, for the jaw sizes smaller than 10 × 10 cm² , the simulation underestimates the dose compared with measurement, while for jaw sizes larger than 10 × 10 cm² , it overestimates dose. For all comparisons between ±50 cm from isocenter, average absolute agreement between simulation and measurement was better than 28%.

CONCLUSION

We have validated the Varian VirtuaLinac's head shielding model via out-of-field doses and quantified the differences between TrueBeam head shielding model created out-of-field doses and measurements for an extended distance of 100 cm.

The effect of the flattening filter on photoneutron production at 10 MV in the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator

PURPOSE

Neutrons are an unavoidable by-product of high-energy radiation therapy treatments that deliver unwanted nontarget dose to patients. Use of flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon beams has been shown to significantly reduce photoneutron production per monitor unit (MU) of dose delivered. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the photoneutron production of the 10 MV and 10 MV FFF beams of the Varian TrueBeam^TM linear accelerator.

METHODS

Neutron fluence spectra were measured using a Nested Neutron Spectrometer^TM (NNS, Detec Inc., Gatineau, Canada). The ratios of neutron fluence and ambient dose equivalent for the 10 MV FFF beam relative to the 10 MV beam, dubbed FF-ratios (FFF/FF), were used to characterize the difference between the two beams. FF-ratios were compared under the following three conditions (a) per MU, at various locations in the treatment room, (b) per MU, with the linac jaws opened and closed, and (c) per electron striking the bremsstrahlung target, as opposed to per MU, at one location with the jaws closed.

RESULTS

On average, the neutron fluence for the 10 MV FFF beam was 37% lower per MU than the 10 MV beam (FF-ratio = 0.63). The FF-ratio in neutron fluence and ambient dose equivalent did not vary by much between different locations within the treatment room. However, the FF-ratio in neutron ambient dose equivalent was reduced significantly when the linac jaws were opened compared to closed, which implies that the jaws contribute more to the photoneutron spectrum of the 10 MV FFF beam than to the 10 MV beam. Finally, it was found that the 10 MV FFF beam produces more photoneutrons per electron striking the bremsstrahlung target than the 10 MV beam (FF-ratio = 2.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The photoneutron fluence per MU produced by the 10 MV FFF beam is 37% lower than the 10 MV beam of a Varian TrueBeam linac. Accordingly, a reduction in neutron dose received by patients is achieved through use of the unflattened beam, provided that treatment plans for each beam require approximately the same number of MU. It was found to be instructive to compare the photoneutron yield per source electron between the two beams as it helped provide an understanding of the physics underlying photoneutron production in both beams.

Independent validation of machine performance check for the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs for daily quality assurance

Purpose

To evaluate the ability of the machine performance check (MPC) on the Halcyon to detect errors, with comparison with the TrueBeam.

Methods

MPC is an automated set of quality assurance (QA) tests that use a phantom placed on the couch and the linac's imaging system(s) to verify the beam constancy and mechanical performance of the Halcyon and TrueBeam linacs. In order to evaluate the beam constancy tests, we inserted solid water slabs between the beam source and the megavoltage imager to simulate changes in beam output, flatness, and symmetry. The MPC results were compared with measurements, using two‐dimensional array under the same conditions. We then studied the accuracy of MPC geometric tests. The accuracies of the relative gantry offset and couch shift tests were evaluated by intentionally inserting phantom shifts, using a rotating or linear motion stage. The MLC offset and absolute gantry offset tests were assessed by miscalibrating these motions on a Halcyon linac.

Results

For the Halcyon system, the average difference in the measured beam output between the IC Profiler and MPC, after intentional changes, was 1.3 ± 0.5% (for changes ≤5%). For Halcyon, the MPC test failed (i.e., prevented treatment) when the beam symmetry change was over 1.9%. The accuracy of the MLC offset test was within 0.05 mm. The absolute gantry offset test was able to detect an offset as small as 0.02°. The accuracy of the absolute couch shift test was 0.03 mm. The accuracy of relative couch shift test of Halcyon was measured as 0.16 mm.

Conclusion

We intentionally inserted errors to evaluate the ability of the MPC to identify errors in dosimetric and geometric parameters. These results showed that the MPC is sufficiently accurate to be effectively used for daily QA of the Halcyon and TrueBeam treatment devices.

Estimating the uncertainty of calculated out-of-field organ dose from a commercial treatment planning system

Therapeutic radiation to cancer patients is accompanied by unintended radiation to organs outside the treatment field. It is known that the model-based dose algorithm has limitation in calculating the out-of-field doses. This study evaluated the out-of-field dose calculated by the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (v.11 with AAA algorithm) in realistic treatment plans with the goal of estimating the uncertainties of calculated organ doses. Photon beam phase-space files for TrueBeam linear accelerator were provided by Varian. These were used as incident sources in EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulations of radiation transport through the downstream jaws and MLC. Dynamic movements of the MLC leaves were fully modeled based on treatment plans using IMRT or VMAT techniques. The Monte Carlo calculated out-of-field doses were then compared with those calculated by Eclipse. The dose comparisons were performed for different beam energies and treatment sites, including head-and-neck, lung, and pelvis. For 6 MV (FF/FFF), 10 MV (FF/FFF), and 15 MV (FF) beams, Eclipse underestimated out-of-field local doses by 30%-50% compared with Monte Carlo calculations when the local dose was <1% of prescribed dose. The accuracy of out-of-field dose calculations using Eclipse is improved when collimator jaws were set at the smallest possible aperture for MLC openings. The Eclipse system consistently underestimates out-of-field dose by a factor of 2 for all beam energies studied at the local dose level of less than 1% of prescribed dose. These findings are useful in providing information on the uncertainties of out-of-field organ doses calculated by Eclipse treatment planning system.

Comparison of Online 6 Degree-of-Freedom Image Registration of Varian TrueBeam Cone-Beam CT and BrainLab ExacTrac X-Ray for Intracranial Radiosurgery

PURPOSE

The study was aimed to compare online 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations of TrueBeam cone-beam computed tomography and BrainLab ExacTrac X-ray imaging systems for intracranial radiosurgery.

METHODS

Phantom and patient studies were performed on a Varian TrueBeam STx linear accelerator (version 2.5), which is integrated with a BrainLab ExacTrac imaging system (version 6.1.1). The phantom study was based on a Rando head phantom and was designed to evaluate isocenter location dependence of the image registrations. Ten isocenters at various locations representing clinical treatment sites were selected in the phantom. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken when the phantom was located at each isocenter. The patient study included 34 patients. Cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac X-ray images were taken at each patient's treatment position. The 6 degree-of-freedom image registrations were performed on cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac, and residual errors calculated from cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac were compared.

RESULTS

In the phantom study, the average residual error differences (absolute values) between cone-beam computed tomography and ExacTrac image registrations were 0.17 ± 0.11 mm, 0.36 ± 0.20 mm, and 0.25 ± 0.11 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.34° ± 0.08°, 0.13° ± 0.09°, and 0.12° ± 0.10°, respectively. In the patient study, the average residual error differences in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions were 0.20 ± 0.16 mm, 0.30 ± 0.18 mm, 0.21 ± 0.18 mm, respectively. The average residual error differences in the rotation, roll, and pitch were 0.40°± 0.16°, 0.17° ± 0.13°, and 0.20° ± 0.14°, respectively. Overall, the average residual error differences were <0.4 mm in the translational directions and <0.5° in the rotational directions. ExacTrac X-ray image registration is comparable to TrueBeam cone-beam computed tomography image registration in intracranial treatments.