The purpose of this paper is to describe a practical approach to commissioning and quality assurance (QA) of a dedicated wide-bore 3 Tesla (3T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner for radiotherapy planning. Methods: A comprehensive commissioning protocol focusing on radiotherapy (RT) specific requirements was developed and performed. RT specific tests included: uniformity characteristics of radio-frequency (RF) coil, couch top attenuation, geometric distortion, laser and couch movement and an end-to-end radiotherapy treatment planning test. General tests for overall system performance and safety measurements were also performed. Results: The use of pre-scan based intensity correction increased the uniformity from 61.7% to 97% (body flexible coil), from 50% to 90% (large flexible coil) and from 51% to 98% (small flexible coil). RT flat top couch decreased signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) by an average of 42%. The mean and maximum geometric distortion was found to be 1.25 mm and 4.08 mm for three dimensional (3D) corrected image acquisition, 2.07 mm and 7.88 mm for two dimensional (2D) corrected image acquisition over 500 mm × 375 mm × 252 mm field of view (FOV). The accuracy of the laser and couch movement was less than ±1 mm. The standard deviation of registration parameters for the end-to-end test was less than 0.41 mm. An on-going QA program was developed to monitor the system's performance. Conclusion: A number of RT specific tests have been described for commissioning and subsequent performance monitoring of a dedicated MRI simulator (MRI-Sim). These tests have been important in establishing and maintaining its operation for RT planning.

The exit detector tool has been demonstrated to be faster for performing the DQA with equivalent sensitivity for detecting MLC LOT errors relative to a conventional phantom-based QA method. In addition, comprehensive MLC performance evaluation and features of reconstructed dose provide additional insight into understanding DQA failures and the clinical relevance of DQA results.

a b s t r a c tFifteen years of reported incidents were reviewed to provide insight into the effectiveness of an Incident Learning System (ISL). The actual error rate over the 15 years was 1.3 reported errors per 1000 treatment attendances. Incidents were reviewed using a Mann-Whitney U Test. The average number of incidents per year and the number of incidents per thousand attendances declined over time. Two seven-year periods were considered for analysis and the average for the first period (2005-2011) was 6 reported incidents per 1000 attendances compared to 2 incidents for the later period (2012-2018), p < 0.05. SAC 1 and SAC 2 errors have reduced over time and the reduction could be attributed to the quality assurance aspect of IGRT where the incident is identified prior to treatment delivery rather than after, reducing the severity of any potential incidents. The reasoning behind overall reduction in incident reporting over time is unclear but may be associated to quality and technology initiatives, issues with the ISL itself or a change in the staff reporting culture.Crown

A new approach to transit dose verification has been demonstrated utilizing a water equivalent EPID and a commercial TPS. The accuracy of dose calculations at the EPID plane using a commercial TPS beam model was experimentally confirmed. The model proposed in this study provides an accurate method to directly verify doses delivered during treatment without the additional uncertainties inherent in modelling the complex dose-response of standard EPIDs.

No abstract

The developed software has been shown to accurately autosegment the seed positions in kV planar images except for two 20° arcs where seeds are obscured by anatomical structures. The isocenter trajectories determined by the system, based on the monoscopic images, provide useful information for monitoring the prostate position. The developed system has potential application for monitoring prostate position during treatment delivery in linear accelerator based SBRT.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dose response of amorphous silicon (a‐Si) electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) under different acquisition settings for both open jaw defined fields and segmented intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) fields. Four different EPIDs were used. Two Siemens and one Elekta plus a standalone Perkin Elmer research EPID. Each was operated with different acquisition systems and settings. Dose response linearity was measured for open static jaw defined fields and ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields for a range of equipment and system settings. Six ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields were used. The segments of each IMRT field were fixed at 10×10.15emcm2 field size with equal MU per segment, each field having a total of 20 MU. Simultaneous measurements with an ionization chamber array (ICA) and EPID were performed to separate beam and detector response characteristics. Three different pixel calibration methods were demonstrated and compared for an example ‘clinical IMRT field’. The dose response with the Elekta EPID for ‘simple’ segmented IMRT fields versus static fields agreed to within 2.5% for monitor unit (MU)≥2. The dose response for the Siemens systems was difficult to interpret due to the poor reproducibility for segmented delivery, at MU≤5, which was not observed with the standalone research EPID nor ICA on the same machine. The dose response measured under different acquisition settings and different linac/EPID combinations matched closely (≤1%), except for the Siemens EPID. Clinical IMRT EPID dosimetry implemented with the different pixel‐to‐dose calibration methods indicated that calibration at 20 MU provides equivalent results to implementing a ghosting correction model. The nonlinear dose response was consistent across both clinical EPIDs and the standalone research EPID, with the exception of the poor reproducibility seen with Siemens EPID images of IMRT fields. The nonlinear dose response was relatively insensitive to acquisition settings and appears to be primarily due to gain ghosting effects. No additional ghosting correction factor is necessary when the pixel‐to‐dose calibration factor at small MU calibration method is used.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.56.Fc, 87.57.uq

No abstract