• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.304-310
• /
• 2010

Less execution of the electron arc treatment could in large part be attributed to the lack of an adequate planning system. Unlike most linear accelerators providing the electron arc mode, no commercial planning systems for the electron arc plan are available at this time. In this work, with the expectation that an easily accessible planning system could promote electron arc therapy, a commercial planning system was commissioned and evaluated for the electron arc plan. For the electron arc plan with use of a Varian 21-EX, Pinnacle3 (ver. 7.4f), with an electron pencil beam algorithm, was commissioned in which the arc consisted of multiple static fields with a fixed beam opening. Film dosimetry and point measurements were executed for the evaluation of the computation. Beam modeling was not satisfactory with the calculation of lateral profiles. Contrary to good agreement within 1% of the calculated and measured depth profiles, the calculated lateral profiles showed underestimation compared with measurements, such that the distance-to-agreement (DTA) was 5.1 mm at a 50% dose level for 6 MeV and 6.7 mm for 12 MeV with similar results for the measured depths. Point and film measurements for the humanoid phantom revealed that the delivered dose was more than the calculation by approximately 10%. The electron arc plan, based on the pencil beam algorithm, provides qualitative information for the dose distribution. Dose verification before the treatment should be mandatory.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.4
• /
• pp.193-200
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to present commissioning results of the ViewRay system. We verified safety functions of the ViewRay system. For imaging system, we acquired signal to noise ratio (SNR) and image uniformity. In addition, we checked spatial integrity of the image. Couch movement accuracy and coincidence of isocenters (radiation therapy system, imaging system and virtual isocneter) was verified. Accuracy of MLC positioing was checked. We performed reference dosimetry according to American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 51 (TG-51) in water phantom for head 1 and 3. The deviations between measurements and calculation of percent depth dose (PDD) and output factor were evaluated. Finally, we performed gamma evaluations with a total of 8 IMRT plans as an end-to-end (E2E) test of the system. Every safety system of ViewRay operated properly. The values of SNR and Uniformity met the tolerance level. Every point within 10 cm and 17.5 cm radii about the isocenter showed deviations less than 1 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The average couch movement errors in transverse (x), longitudinal (y) and vertical (z) directions were 0.2 mm, 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The deviations between radiation isocenter and virtual isocenter in x, y and z directions were 0 mm, 0 mm and 0.3 mm, respectively. Those between virtual isocenter and imaging isocenter were 0.6 mm, 0.5 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively. The average MLC positioning errors were less than 0.6 mm. The deviations of output, PDDs between mesured vs. BJR supplement 25, PDDs between measured and calculated and output factors of each head were less than 0.5%, 1%, 1% and 2%, respectively. For E2E test, average gamma passing rate with 3%/3 mm criterion was $99.9%{\pm}0.1%$.