Open AccessEvaluation of the truebeam machine performance check ( MPC ): OBI X‐ray tube alignment procedure
Author(s) -
Barnes Michael P.,
Pomare Dennis,
Menk Frederick W.,
Moraro Buiron,
Greer Peter B.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.12445
Subject(s) - isocenter , truebeam , imaging phantom , quality assurance , offset (computer science) , tube (container) , image guided radiation therapy , computer science , linear particle accelerator , repeatability , x ray tube , optics , nuclear medicine , materials science , medical imaging , physics , mathematics , artificial intelligence , medicine , beam (structure) , external quality assessment , pathology , composite material , quantum mechanics , programming language , statistics , electrode , anode
Alignment of the On‐Board Imager ( OBI ) X‐ray tube is important for ensuring imaging to treatment isocenter coincidence, which in turn is important for accurate Image Guided Radiotherapy ( IGRT ). Varian introduced a new X‐ray tube alignment procedure for the TrueBeam linac in software version 2.5 MR 2 as part of the machine performance check ( MPC ) application. This study evaluated the new procedure against conventional methods and examined the clinical significance of X‐ray tube misalignment. Long term stability and short term repeatability of MPC tube alignment was assessed as well as sensitivity of the method to setup error. Standard quality assurance tests expected to be sensitive to tube misalignment were performed before and after tube alignment. These tests included: IsoCal verification; MPC kV imager offset; Winston‐Lutz: kV imaging to treatment/radiation isocenter coincidence; CBCT image QA using the Catphan phantom; and OBI image geometric accuracy and center pixel alignment. Tube alignment measurements were performed with MPC , the two‐plate method, and wire‐on‐faceplate method. The X‐ray tube was then realigned by approximately 1.01 mm in the tangential plane based upon MPC and the tube alignment and standard quality assurance measurements were repeated. The time taken for each tube alignment method was estimated. The MPC method of tube alignment was found to be repeatable, insignificantly sensitive to phantom setup error and quick and simple to perform. The standard QA tests were generally insensitive to the tube alignment change, possibly because of the IsoCal correction. However, reduction in the magnitude of IsoCal correction and MPC kV imager offset was recorded after tube alignment. There was also apparent improvement in CBCT image uniformity. The MPC procedure is recommended for X‐ray tube alignment.