Acceptance and verification of the Halcyon-Eclipse linear accelerator-treatment planning system without 3D water scanning system

Song Gao, Tucker Netherton, Mikhail A. Chetvertkov, Yuting Li, Laurence E. Court, William E. Simon, Jie Shi, Peter A. Balter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We tested whether an ionization chamber array (ICA) and a one-dimensional water scanner (1DS) could be used instead of a three-dimensional water scanning system (3DWS) for acceptance testing and commissioning verification of the Varian Halcyon–Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS). The Halcyon linear accelerator has a single 6-MV flattening-filter-free beam and a nonadjustable beam model for the TPS. Beam data were measured with a 1DS, ICA, ionization chambers, and electrometer. Acceptance testing and commissioning were done simultaneously by comparing the measured data with TPS-calculated percent-depth-dose (PDD) and profiles. The ICA was used to measure profiles of various field sizes (10-, 20-, and 28 cm2) at depths of dmax (1.3 cm), 5-, 10-, and 20 cm. The 1DS was used for output factors (OFs) and PDDs. OFs were measured with 1DS for various fields (2–28 cm2) at a source-to-surface distance of 90 cm. All measured data were compared with TPS-calculations. Profiles, off-axis ratios (OAR), PDDs and OFs were also measured with a 3DWS as a secondary check. Profiles between the ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) at various depths across the fields indicated that the maximum discrepancies in high-dose and low-dose tail were within 2% and 3%, respectively, and the maximum distance-to-agreement in the penumbra region was <3 mm. The largest OAR differences between ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) values were 0.23% (−0.25%) for a 28 × 28 cm2 field, and the largest point-by-point PDD differences between 1DS and TPS (1DS and 3DWS) were −0.41% ± 0.12% (−0.32% ± 0.17%) across the fields. Both OAR and PDD showed the beam energy is well matched to the TPS model. The average ratios of 1DS-measured OFs to the TPS (1DS to 3DWS) values were 1.000 ± 0.002 (0.999 ± 0.003). The Halcyon–Eclipse system can be accepted and commissioned without the need for a 3DWS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-117
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of applied clinical medical physics
Volume20
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2019

Fingerprint

Particle Accelerators
Linear accelerators
Ionization chambers
eclipses
linear accelerators
acceptability
ionization chambers
planning
Scanning
Planning
scanning
Water
water
dosage
output
profiles
Electrometers
penumbras
electrometers
Testing

Keywords

  • Halcyon linear accelerator
  • acceptance and commissioning
  • ionization chamber array

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiation
  • Instrumentation
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Acceptance and verification of the Halcyon-Eclipse linear accelerator-treatment planning system without 3D water scanning system. / Gao, Song; Netherton, Tucker; Chetvertkov, Mikhail A.; Li, Yuting; Court, Laurence E.; Simon, William E.; Shi, Jie; Balter, Peter A.

In: Journal of applied clinical medical physics, Vol. 20, No. 10, 01.10.2019, p. 111-117.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a880fbba40dd4c01bb0f00bb827ce893,
title = "Acceptance and verification of the Halcyon-Eclipse linear accelerator-treatment planning system without 3D water scanning system",
abstract = "We tested whether an ionization chamber array (ICA) and a one-dimensional water scanner (1DS) could be used instead of a three-dimensional water scanning system (3DWS) for acceptance testing and commissioning verification of the Varian Halcyon–Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS). The Halcyon linear accelerator has a single 6-MV flattening-filter-free beam and a nonadjustable beam model for the TPS. Beam data were measured with a 1DS, ICA, ionization chambers, and electrometer. Acceptance testing and commissioning were done simultaneously by comparing the measured data with TPS-calculated percent-depth-dose (PDD) and profiles. The ICA was used to measure profiles of various field sizes (10-, 20-, and 28 cm2) at depths of dmax (1.3 cm), 5-, 10-, and 20 cm. The 1DS was used for output factors (OFs) and PDDs. OFs were measured with 1DS for various fields (2–28 cm2) at a source-to-surface distance of 90 cm. All measured data were compared with TPS-calculations. Profiles, off-axis ratios (OAR), PDDs and OFs were also measured with a 3DWS as a secondary check. Profiles between the ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) at various depths across the fields indicated that the maximum discrepancies in high-dose and low-dose tail were within 2{\%} and 3{\%}, respectively, and the maximum distance-to-agreement in the penumbra region was <3 mm. The largest OAR differences between ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) values were 0.23{\%} (−0.25{\%}) for a 28 × 28 cm2 field, and the largest point-by-point PDD differences between 1DS and TPS (1DS and 3DWS) were −0.41{\%} ± 0.12{\%} (−0.32{\%} ± 0.17{\%}) across the fields. Both OAR and PDD showed the beam energy is well matched to the TPS model. The average ratios of 1DS-measured OFs to the TPS (1DS to 3DWS) values were 1.000 ± 0.002 (0.999 ± 0.003). The Halcyon–Eclipse system can be accepted and commissioned without the need for a 3DWS.",
keywords = "Halcyon linear accelerator, acceptance and commissioning, ionization chamber array",
author = "Song Gao and Tucker Netherton and Chetvertkov, {Mikhail A.} and Yuting Li and Court, {Laurence E.} and Simon, {William E.} and Jie Shi and Balter, {Peter A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/acm2.12719",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "111--117",
journal = "Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics",
issn = "1526-9914",
publisher = "American Institute of Physics Publising LLC",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acceptance and verification of the Halcyon-Eclipse linear accelerator-treatment planning system without 3D water scanning system

AU - Gao, Song

AU - Netherton, Tucker

AU - Chetvertkov, Mikhail A.

AU - Li, Yuting

AU - Court, Laurence E.

AU - Simon, William E.

AU - Shi, Jie

AU - Balter, Peter A.

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - We tested whether an ionization chamber array (ICA) and a one-dimensional water scanner (1DS) could be used instead of a three-dimensional water scanning system (3DWS) for acceptance testing and commissioning verification of the Varian Halcyon–Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS). The Halcyon linear accelerator has a single 6-MV flattening-filter-free beam and a nonadjustable beam model for the TPS. Beam data were measured with a 1DS, ICA, ionization chambers, and electrometer. Acceptance testing and commissioning were done simultaneously by comparing the measured data with TPS-calculated percent-depth-dose (PDD) and profiles. The ICA was used to measure profiles of various field sizes (10-, 20-, and 28 cm2) at depths of dmax (1.3 cm), 5-, 10-, and 20 cm. The 1DS was used for output factors (OFs) and PDDs. OFs were measured with 1DS for various fields (2–28 cm2) at a source-to-surface distance of 90 cm. All measured data were compared with TPS-calculations. Profiles, off-axis ratios (OAR), PDDs and OFs were also measured with a 3DWS as a secondary check. Profiles between the ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) at various depths across the fields indicated that the maximum discrepancies in high-dose and low-dose tail were within 2% and 3%, respectively, and the maximum distance-to-agreement in the penumbra region was <3 mm. The largest OAR differences between ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) values were 0.23% (−0.25%) for a 28 × 28 cm2 field, and the largest point-by-point PDD differences between 1DS and TPS (1DS and 3DWS) were −0.41% ± 0.12% (−0.32% ± 0.17%) across the fields. Both OAR and PDD showed the beam energy is well matched to the TPS model. The average ratios of 1DS-measured OFs to the TPS (1DS to 3DWS) values were 1.000 ± 0.002 (0.999 ± 0.003). The Halcyon–Eclipse system can be accepted and commissioned without the need for a 3DWS.

AB - We tested whether an ionization chamber array (ICA) and a one-dimensional water scanner (1DS) could be used instead of a three-dimensional water scanning system (3DWS) for acceptance testing and commissioning verification of the Varian Halcyon–Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS). The Halcyon linear accelerator has a single 6-MV flattening-filter-free beam and a nonadjustable beam model for the TPS. Beam data were measured with a 1DS, ICA, ionization chambers, and electrometer. Acceptance testing and commissioning were done simultaneously by comparing the measured data with TPS-calculated percent-depth-dose (PDD) and profiles. The ICA was used to measure profiles of various field sizes (10-, 20-, and 28 cm2) at depths of dmax (1.3 cm), 5-, 10-, and 20 cm. The 1DS was used for output factors (OFs) and PDDs. OFs were measured with 1DS for various fields (2–28 cm2) at a source-to-surface distance of 90 cm. All measured data were compared with TPS-calculations. Profiles, off-axis ratios (OAR), PDDs and OFs were also measured with a 3DWS as a secondary check. Profiles between the ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) at various depths across the fields indicated that the maximum discrepancies in high-dose and low-dose tail were within 2% and 3%, respectively, and the maximum distance-to-agreement in the penumbra region was <3 mm. The largest OAR differences between ICA and TPS (ICA and 3DWS) values were 0.23% (−0.25%) for a 28 × 28 cm2 field, and the largest point-by-point PDD differences between 1DS and TPS (1DS and 3DWS) were −0.41% ± 0.12% (−0.32% ± 0.17%) across the fields. Both OAR and PDD showed the beam energy is well matched to the TPS model. The average ratios of 1DS-measured OFs to the TPS (1DS to 3DWS) values were 1.000 ± 0.002 (0.999 ± 0.003). The Halcyon–Eclipse system can be accepted and commissioned without the need for a 3DWS.

KW - Halcyon linear accelerator

KW - acceptance and commissioning

KW - ionization chamber array

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073732295&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073732295&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/acm2.12719

DO - 10.1002/acm2.12719

M3 - Article

C2 - 31553525

AN - SCOPUS:85073732295

VL - 20

SP - 111

EP - 117

JO - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

JF - Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

SN - 1526-9914

IS - 10

ER -