Purpose The purpose of the study was to investigate if surface guided radiotherapy (SGRT) can decrease setup deviations for tangential and locoregional breast cancer patients compared to conventional laser‐based setup (LBS). Materials and Methods Both tangential (63 patients) and locoregional (76 patients) breast cancer patients were enrolled in this study. For LBS, the patients were positioned by aligning skin markers to the room lasers. For the surface based setup (SBS), an optical surface scanning system was used for daily setup using both single and three camera systems. To compare the two setup methods, the patient position was evaluated using verification imaging (field images or orthogonal images). Results For both tangential and locoregional treatments, SBS decreased the setup deviation significantly compared to LBS (P < 0.01). For patients receiving tangential treatment, 95% of the treatment sessions were within the clinical tolerance of ≤ 4 mm in any direction (lateral, longitudinal or vertical) using SBS, compared to 84% for LBS. Corresponding values for patients receiving locoregional treatment were 70% and 54% for SBS and LBS, respectively. No significant difference was observed comparing the setup result using a single camera system or a three camera system. Conclusions Conventional laser‐based setup can with advantage be replaced by surface based setup. Daily SGRT improves patient setup without additional imaging dose to breast cancer patients regardless if a single or three camera system was used.

The all-in validation program allows a systematic approach in monitoring the different levels of RA treatments. With the systematic approach comes a better understanding of both the capabilities and the limits of the used solution. The program can be useful for implementation, but also for the validation of major upgrades.

The flexibility in radiotherapy can be improved if a patient can be moved between any one of the department's medical linear accelerators without the need to change anything in the patient's treatment plan. For this to be possible, the dosimetric characteristics of the various accelerators must be the same, or nearly the same i.e. the accelerators must be beam-matched. During a period of nine months, eight Varian iX accelerators with 6 and 15 MV photon beams and 6-18 MeV electron beams (only four of the eight) were installed at our clinic. All accelerators fulfilled the vendor-defined "fine beam-match" criteria, and a more extensive set of measurements was carried out during commissioning. The measured absorbed dose data for each accelerator were compared with the first accelerator, chosen as reference, and the TPS calculations. Two of the eight accelerators showed a larger discrepancy for the 15 MV beam not revealed by the vendor-defined acceptance criteria, whereas the other six accelerators were satisfactorily matched. The beam-matching acceptance criteria defined by the vendor are not strict enough to guarantee optimal beam-match. Deviations related to dose calculations and to beam-matched accelerators may add up. The safest and most practical way to ensure that all accelerators are within clinical acceptable accuracy is to include TPS calculations in the evaluation. Further, comparisons between measurements and calculations should be done in absolute dose terms.

No abstract