Premium
SU‐F‐P‐34: Commission of Enhanced Dynamic Wedge of Varian Truebeam Linac System with Feature Study
Author(s) -
Li K,
Able A
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4955741
Subject(s) - truebeam , linear particle accelerator , nuclear medicine , wedge (geometry) , collimator , dosimetry , standard deviation , physics , optics , mathematics , medicine , beam (structure) , statistics
Purpose: To evaluate an Enhanced Dynamic Wedge (EDW) as part of machine commission process with feature study. Methods: The EDW system in this study was from a Truebeam, which is the Linear accelerator manufactured by Varian Medical Systems. The EDW feature vectors includes selected elements. These elements were dosimetric output spots check, field size, wedge angles, dose rate, collimator orientation, and different energy settings. Point dose measurement was done by a PTW farmer chamber, and profiles were measured by Gafchromic EBT2 films positing at different depths of the Solidwater based on the study elements. The output spot measurements were done with PTW farmer chamber with Solidwater setting for all orientation and wedge angles in the EDW system. The profiles comparisons were done by IMRT measurement function in RIT software at version 6.3. And the films were scanned by Vidar scanner. Dosimetry calculation were done by using the same Solidwater scanned by GE LightSpeed CT in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS). Then measurements were compared to simulation results in TPS. Results: The energy average percentage difference between chamber measurement and TPS was 0.16% with standard deviation (SD) at 0.93%. For selected features, the average percentage difference between film measurement and computation was 0.93% with SD at 1.55% in horizontal profiles, and 1.18% with SD at 0.98% at vertical profiles. The average gamma difference for film measurement and TPS computing results was at 0.924 with SD at 0.314. Conclusion: A feature vector was developed to describe the commission of EDW, and developing a complete set of features for sufficiency of commission of a LINAC function could provide optimal commission instance with acceptable confident level of clinical application of the machine. Given the institution specific vector pattern and big data process, it could provide wide range clinical outcome comparison information in application of EDW.