Purpose: Linac quality assurance (QA)
can be time consuming involving set up, execution, analysis and subject to user
variability. The purpose of this study is to develop qualitative
automation tools for mechanical and imaging QA to improve efficiency,
consistency, and accuracy. Methods and Materials: Traditionally QA has been performed with graph
paper, film, and multiple phantoms. Analysis consists of ruler and vendor
provided software. We have developed a single four-phantommethod for QA
procedures including light-radiation coincidence, imaging quality, table motion
and Isocentricity and 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. Results: 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 0.11mm to 0.04mm and table motion improved
from 0.17mm to 0.12mm. CBCT STD improved from 0.99mm to 0.61
References
[1]
Shalek, R.J. (1977) Determination of Absorbed Dose in a Patient Irradiated by Beams of X or Gamma Rays in Radiotherapy Procedures. Medical Physics, 4, 461. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.594356
[2]
Kutcher, G.J., Coia, L., Gillin, M., et al. (1994) Report of AAPM TG 40, Comprehensive QA for Radiation Oncology. Medical Physics, 21, 581-618. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597316
[3]
Klein, E.E., Hanley, J., Bayouth, J., et al. (2009) Task Group 142 Report: Quality Assurance of Medical Acceleratorsa. Medical Physics, 36, 4197-4212. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3190392
[4]
Smith, K., Balter, P., Duhon, J., et al. (2017) AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8. a.: Linear Accelerator Performance Tests. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 18, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12080
[5]
Li, Y., Chen, L., Zhu, J., Wang, B. and Liu, X. (2017) A Quantitative Method to the Analysis of MLC Leaf Position and Speed Based on EPID and EBT 3 Film for Dynamic IMRT Treatment with Different Types of MLC. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 18, 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12102
[6]
Chang, J., Obcemea, C., Sillanpaa, J., Mechalakos, J. and Burman, C. (2004) Use of EPID for Leaf Position Accuracy QA of Dynamic Multi-Leaf Collimator (DMLC) Treatment. Medical Physics, 31, 2091-2096. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1760187
[7]
Njeh, C.F., Caroprese, B. and Desai, P. (2012) A Simple Quality Assurance Test Tool for the Visual Verification of Light and Radiation Field Congruent Using Electronic Portal Images Device and Computed Radiography. Radiation Oncology, 7, 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-7-49
[8]
Das, I.J., Cao, M., Cheng, C.-W., et al. (2011) A Quality Assurance Phantom for Electronic Portal Imaging Devices. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 12, 391-403. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3350
[9]
Sun, B., Goddu, S.M., Yaddanapudi, S., et al. (2015) Daily QA of Linear Accelerators Using Only EPID and OBI. Medical Physics, 42, 5584-5594. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4929550
[10]
Valdes, G., Morin, O., Valenciaga, Y., Kirby, N., Pouliot, J. and Chuang, C. (2015) Use of TrueBeam Developer Mode for Imaging QA. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 16, 322-333. https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i4.5363