Premium
SU‐F‐T‐481: Physics Evaluation of a Newly Released InCise™ Multileaf Collimator for CyberKnife M6™ System
Author(s) -
Wang L,
Chin E,
Lo 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 - 10.1118/1.4956666
Subject(s) - multileaf collimator , physics , nuclear medicine , penumbra , ionization chamber , imaging phantom , dosimetry , beam (structure) , materials science , optics , mathematics , linear particle accelerator , medicine , ion , quantum mechanics , ionization , ischemia , cardiology
Purpose: This work reports the results of the physics evaluation of a newly released InCise™2 Multileaf Collimator (MLC) installed in our institution. Methods: Beam property data was measured with unshielded diode and EBT2 films. The measurements included MLC leaf transmission, beam profiles, output factors and tissue‐phantom ratios. MLC performance was evaluated for one month after commissioning. Weekly Garden Fence tests were performed for leaf / bank positioning in standard (A/P) and clinically relevant non‐standard positions, before and after MLC driving exercises of 10+ minutes. Daily Picket Fence test and AQA test, End‐to‐End tests and dosimetric quality assurance were performed to evaluate the overall system performance. Results: All measurements including beam energy, flatness and symmetry, were within manufacture specifications. Leaf transmission was 0.4% <0.5% specification. The values of output factors ranged from 0.825 (7.6 mm × 7.5 mm) to 1.026 (115.0 mm × 100.1 mm). Average beam penumbra at 10 cm depth ranged from 2.7mm/2.7mm(7.6 mm × 7.5 mm) to 6.0 mm/6.2mm(84.6 mm × 84.7 mm). Slight penumbra difference (<10% from average penumbra for fields >20 mm) was observed in the direction perpendicular to leaf motion due to the tilting of the leaf housing. Mean leaf position offsets was −0.08±0.07mm and −0.13 ± 0.08 for X1 and X2 leaf banks in 13 Garden Fence tests. No significant difference on average leaf positioning offsets was observed between different leaf orientations and before/after MLC driving exercises. Six End‐to‐End tests showed 0.43±0.23mm overall targeting accuracy. Picket‐Fence and AQA showed stable performance of MLC during the test period. Dosimetric point dose measurements for test cases agreed with calculation within 3%. All film measurements on relative dose had Gamma (2%, 2mm) passing rate of >95%. Conclusion: The Incise™2 MLC for CyberKnife M6™ was proven to be accurate and reliable, and it is currently in clinical use. Stanford was one of the physics evaluation sites for the newly released InCise 2 MLC for Accuray Inc.