Premium
SU‐E‐T‐211: Comparison of Seven New TrueBeam Linacs with Enhanced Beam Data Conformance Using a Beam Comparison Software Tool
Author(s) -
Grzetic S,
Hessler J,
Gupta N,
Woollard J,
DiCostanzo D,
Ayan A,
Carlson M
Publication year - 2015
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 - 10.1118/1.4924572
Subject(s) - truebeam , linear particle accelerator , beam (structure) , medical physics , dosimetry , software , calibration , computer science , physics , nuclear medicine , medicine , optics , operating system , quantum mechanics
Purpose: To develop an independent software tool to assist in commissioning linacs with enhanced beam conformance, as well as perform ongoing QA for dosimetrically equivalent linacs. Methods: Linac manufacturers offer enhanced beam conformance as an option to allow for clinics to complete commissioning efficiently, as well as implement dosimetrically equivalent linacs. The specification for enhanced conformance includes PDD as well as profiles within 80% FWHM. Recently, we commissioned seven Varian TrueBeam linacs with enhanced beam conformance. We developed a software tool in Visual Basic to allow us to load the reference beam data and compare our beam data during commissioning to evaluate enhanced beam conformance. This tool also allowed us to upload our beam data used for commissioning our dosimetrically equivalent beam models to compare and tweak each of our linac beams to match our modelled data in Varian's Eclipse TPS. This tool will also be used during annual QA of the linacs to compare our beam data to our baseline data, as required by TG‐142. Results: Our software tool was used to check beam conformance for seven TrueBeam linacs that we commissioned in the past six months. Using our tool we found that the factory conformed linacs showed up to 3.82% difference in their beam profile data upon installation. Using our beam comparison tool, we were able to adjust the energy and profiles of our beams to accomplish a better than 1.00% point by point data conformance. Conclusion: The availability of quantitative comparison tools is essential to accept and commission linacs with enhanced beam conformance, as well as to beam match multiple linacs. We further intend to use the same tool to ensure our beam data conforms to the commissioning beam data during our annual QA in keeping with the requirements of TG‐142.