%0 Journal Article
%T Automated Linac QA Using Scripting  and Varian Developer Mode
%A Keith Pearman
%A Nicholas Koch
%A David Wiant
%A Han Liu
%A Benjamin Sintay
%J International Journal of Medical Physics,Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology
%P 149-168
%@ 2168-5444
%D 2021
%I Scientific Research Publishing
%R 10.4236/ijmpcero.2021.104013
%X <span><span><b><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">Purpose:</span></b></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> Linac quality assurance (QA)
can be time consuming involving set up, execution, analysis and subject to user
variability. The purpose of this study i</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">s to develop qualitative
automation tools for mechanical and imaging QA to improve efficiency,
consistency, and accuracy. <b>Methods and Materials: </b>Traditionally QA ha</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">s</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> been performed with graph
paper, film, and multiple phantoms. Analysis consists of ruler and vendor
provided software. We have developed a single four-phantom<b> </b>method for QA
procedures including light-radiation coincidence, imaging quality, table motion
and Isocentricity an</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">d separately cone beam computed tomography. XML
scripts were developed to execute a series of tasks using Varian¡¯s Truebeam
Developer Mode. Non-phantom QA procedures have also been developed including
field size, dose rate, MLC position, MLC and gantry speed, star shot,
Winston-Lutz and Half Beam Block. All analysis is performed using inhouse
MATLAB codes. <b>Results: </b>Overall time savings were 2.2 hours per Linac per
month. Consistency improvements (standard deviation, STD) were observed for
some tests. For example: field size improved from 0.11</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">mm to 0.04</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">mm and table motion improved
from 0.17</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">mm to 0.12</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">mm. CBCT STD improved from 0.99</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\"> </span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:&quot;\">mm to 0.61</span></span></span></span><span><span><span><span
%K Varian Developer Mode
%K Scripting
%K Automation
%U http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=113333