Premium
SU‐E‐T‐630: Commissioning for SRS Planning Systems
Author(s) -
Pella S,
Smith C,
Bacala A,
Leventouri T
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4888966
Subject(s) - linear particle accelerator , cyberknife , collimated light , radiation treatment planning , dosimetry , field size , beam (structure) , radiosurgery , nuclear medicine , detector , medical physics , computer science , mathematics , physics , optics , radiation therapy , medicine , laser
Purpose: This study will try to find optimal procedures to collect small fields beam data for commissioning in treatment planning systems (TPS), and to provide a protocol to collect output factors for very small field sizes: 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm to 4.0 cm × 4.0 cm. This will help in determining the correct beam configuration methods in TPS planning intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery SRS using mini multileaf collimation (mMLC). Methods: Data has been collected for a mMLC linear accelerator (linac) Novalis from 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm to 10 cm × 10 cm (its maximum field size). The TPS chosen is BrainLab, Eclipse & Cyberknife. The beam data collected was modeled and imported in the TPS. Verification plans were generated in solid water to confirm the goodness of the data. 3D and IMRT plans on regular CT scans were generated and verified using Mapcheck. All 3D plans with field sizes above 4 cm × 4 cm verified excellent using a distance to agreement of 2 mm and a 2% tolerance. IMRT plans gave an error of ‐8%. New scans with new detectors have been taken, new field sizes were introduced, and focus has been applied on determining the dosimetric leaf gap. Results: Although this is still a work in progress, this study brings several issues to light: the importance of the correct technique in beam data collection from the correct watertank to the correct detectors. Readings for rectangular fields have to be taken especially for fields which one side is under 4 cm. Conclusion: The use of equivalent square fields will not provide correct readings for the fields with large differences between the length and the width.