Open AccessAdding customized electron energy beams to TrueBeam linear accelerators
Author(s) -
Gao Song,
Muruganandham Manickam,
Du Weiliang,
Ohrt Jared,
Kudchadker Rajat J.,
Balter Peter A.
Publication year - 2022
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/acm2.13633
Subject(s) - truebeam , linear particle accelerator , physics , imaging phantom , beam (structure) , ionization chamber , electron , flatness (cosmology) , cathode ray , monitor unit , optics , ionization , medical physics , nuclear physics , nuclear medicine , ion , medicine , cosmology , quantum mechanics
Purpose To better meet clinical needs and facilitate optimal treatment planning, we added two new electron energy beams (7 and 11 MeV) to two Varian TrueBeam linacs. Methods We worked with the vendor to create two additional customized electron energies without hardware modifications. For each beam, we set the bending magnet current and then optimized other beam‐specific parameters to achieve depths of 50% ionization ( I 50 ) of 2.9 cm for 7 MeV and 4.2 cm for the 11 MeV beam with the 15 × 15 cm 2 cone at 100 cm source‐to‐surface distance (SSD) by using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) with a double‐wedge (DW) phantom. Beams were steered and balanced to optimize symmetry with the ICP. After all parameters were set, full commissioning was done including measuring beam profiles, percent depth doses (PDDs), output factors (OFs) at standard, and extended SSDs. Measured data were compared between the two linacs and against the values calculated by our RayStation treatment planning system (TPS) following Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) guidelines. Results The I 50 values initially determined with the ICP/DW agreed with those from a PDD‐scanned in‐water phantom within 0.2 mm for the 7 and 11 MeV on both linacs. Comparison of the beam characteristics from the two linacs indicated that flatness and symmetry agreed within 0.4%, and point‐by‐point differences in PDD were within 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 7 MeV and 0.01% ± 0.3% for the 11 MeV. The OF ratios between the two linacs were 1.000 ± 0.007 for the 7 MeV and 1.004 ± 0.007 for the 11 MeV. Agreement between TPS‐calculated outputs and measurements were −0.1% ± 1.0% for the 7 MeV and 0.2% ± 0.8% for the 11 MeV. All other parameters met the MPPG 5.a's 3%/3‐mm criteria. Conclusion We were able to add two new beam energies with no hardware modifications. Tuning of the new beams was facilitated by the ICP/DW system allowing us to have the procedures done in a few hours and achieve highly consistent results across two linacs. PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc