Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2020.43.2.105

Evaluation of Beam-Matching Accuracy for 8 MV Photon Beam between the Same Model Linear Accelerator  

Kim, Yon-Lae (Department of Radiologic Technology, Choonhae College of Health Science)
Chung, Jin-Beom (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National Univ. Bundang Hospital)
Kang, Seong-Hee (Department of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National Univ. Bundang Hospital)
Publication Information
Journal of radiological science and technology / v.43, no.2, 2020 , pp. 105-114 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aimed to assess of beam-matching accuracy for an 8 MV beam between the same model linear accelerators(Linac) commissioned over two years. Two models were got the customer acceptance procedure(CAP) criteria. For commissioning data for beam-matched linacs, the percentage depth doses(PDDs), beam profiles, output factors, multi-leaf collimator(MLC) leaf transmission factors, and the dosimetric leaf gap(DLG) were compared. In addition, the accuracy of beam matching was verified at phantom and patient levels. At phantom level, the point doses specified in TG-53 and TG-119 were compared to evaluate the accuracy of beam modelling. At patient level, the dose volume histogram(DVH) parameters and the delivery accuracy are evaluated on volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) plan for 40 patients that included 20 lung and 20 brain cases. Ionization depth curve and dose profiles obtained in CAP showed a good level for beam matching between both Linacs. The variations in commissioning beam data, such as PDDs, beam profiles, output factors, TF, and DLG were all less than 1%. For the treatment plans of brain tumor and lung cancer, the average and maximum differences in evaluated DVH parameters for the planning target volume(PTV) and the organs at risk(OARs) were within 0.30% and 1.30%. Furthermore, all gamma passing rates for both beam-matched Linacs were higher than 98% for the 2%/2 mm criteria and 99% for the 2%/3 mm criteria. The overall variations in the beam data, as well as tests at phantom and patient levels remains all within the tolerance (1% difference) of clinical acceptability between beam-matched Linacs. Thus, we found an excellent dosimetric agreement to 8 MV beam characteristics for the same model Linacs.
Keywords
Percentage depth dose; Dose profile; Commissioning; Dose volume histogram; Delivery accuracy;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Hrbacek J, Depuydt T, Nulens A, Swinnen A, Heuvel FV. Quantitative evaluation of a beam-mathcing procedure using one-dimensional gamma analysis. Med Phys. 2007;34:2917-27.   DOI
2 Beyer GP. Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2013;14:273-88.   DOI
3 Glide-Hurst C, Bellon M, Foster R, Altunbas C, Speiser M, et al. Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: a multi-institutional study. Med Phys. 2013;40(3).
4 SjSstrSm D, Bjelkengren U, Ottosson W, Behrens CF. A beam-matching concept for medical linear accelerators. Acta Oncol. 2009;48:192-200.   DOI
5 Kang S, Chung JB, Eom KY, Song C, Kim IA, et al. Possibility of Interchanging Patients for Beam-Matched Linear Accelerators from the Same Vendor. J Korean Phys Soc. 2019;75:628-35.   DOI
6 Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R, Dyke RV. American Association of Physicist in medicine radiation therapy committee task group 53: quality assurance for clinical treatment planning. Med Phys. 1998;25:1773-829.   DOI
7 Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSassoJ TJ, Mechalakos JG, et al. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparison. Med Phys. 2009;36:5359-83.   DOI
8 Nithya L, Raj NA, Rathinamuthu S, Pandey MB. Analyzing the performance of the planning system by u se o f AAPM T G119 t est cases. Radiol Phys Technol. 2016;9:22-9.   DOI
9 Kim YL, Chung JB, Kim JS, Lee JW, Choi KS. Comparison of the performance between portal dosimetry and a commercial two-dimensional array system on pretreatment quality assurance for volumetric-modulated arc and intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Korean Phys Soc. 2014;64:1207-12.   DOI
10 Ashokkumar S, Ganesh KM, Ramalingam K, Karthikeyan K, Jagadheeskumar N. Dosimetric validation of volumetric modulated arc therapy with three 6 MV beam-matched linear accelerators. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2017;18:3439-44.
11 Xu Z, Warrell G, Lee S, et al. Assessment of beammatched Linacs quality/accuracy for interchanging SBRT or SRT patient using VMAT without replanning. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019; 20:1:68-75.   DOI
12 Attalla EM, Abou-Elenein HS, Ammar H, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of a beam matching procedure. Chinese-German J Clin Oncol. 2014;13:89-93.
13 Bhangle JR, Narayanan VKS, Kumar NK, et al. Dosimetric analysis of beam-matching procedure of two similar linear accelerators. J Med Phys. 2011;36:176-80.   DOI
14 Krishnappan C, Radha CA, Balaji K, et al. Evaluation of beam matching accuracy among six Linacs from the same vendor. Radiol Phys Technol. 2018;11:423-33.   DOI
15 Baek TS, Chung EJ, Son J, Yoon M. Feasibility study of patient specific quality assurance using transit dosimetry based on measurement with an electronic portal Imaging Device. Prog Med Phys. 2017;28:54-60.   DOI
16 Watts RJ. Comparative measurements on a series of accelerators by the same vendor. Med Phys. 1999;26:2581-5.   DOI
17 Son SY, Choi KW, Kim JM, et al. Evaluation of image quality for various electronic portal imaging devices in radiation therapy. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2015;38(4):451-61.   DOI