Over the last few years, magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy systems have been introduced into the clinic, allowing for daily online plan adaption. While quality assurance (QA) is similar to conventional radiotherapy systems, there is a need to introduce or modify measurement techniques. As yet, there is no consensus guidance on the QA equipment and test requirements for such systems. Therefore, this report provides an overview of QA equipment and techniques for mechanical, dosimetric, and imaging performance of such systems and recommendation of the QA procedures, particularly for a 1.5T MR-linac device. An overview of the system design and considerations for QA measurements, particularly the effect of the machine geometry and magnetic field on the radiation beam measurements is given. The effect of the magnetic field on measurement equipment and methods is reviewed to provide a foundation for interpreting measurement results and devising appropriate methods. And lastly, a consensus overview of recommended QA, appropriate methods, and tolerances is provided based on conventional QA protocols. The aim of this consensus work was to provide a foundation for QA protocols, comparative studies of system performance, and for future development of QA protocols and measurement methods.
Integrated magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and radiotherapy (RT) delivery machines are currently being developed, with some already in clinical use. It is anticipated that the strong magnetic field used in some MR-RT designs will have a significant impact on routine measurements of dose in the MR-linac performed using ionization chambers, which provide traceability back to a primary standard definition of dose. In particular, the presence of small air gaps around ionization chambers may introduce unacceptably high uncertainty into these measurements. In this study, we investigate and quantify the variation attributable to air gaps for several routinely-used cylindrical ionization chambers in a magnetic field, as well as the effect of the magnetic field alone on the response of the chambers. The measurements were performed in a Co-60 beam, while the ionization chambers were positioned in custom-made Perspex phantoms between the poles of an electromagnet, which was capable of generating magnetic fields of up to 2 T field strength, although measurements were focused around 1.5 T. When an asymmetric air gap was rotated at cardinal angles around the ionization chambers investigated here, variation of up to 8.5 ± 0.2 percentage points (PTW 31006 chamber) was observed in an applied magnetic field of 1.5 T. The minimum peak-to-peak variation was 1.1 ± 0.1% (Exradin A1SL). When the same experiment was performed with a well-defined air gap of known position using the PTW 30013 chamber, a variation of 3.8 ± 0.2% was observed. When water was added to the phantom cavity to eliminate all air gaps, the variation for the PTW 30013 was reduced to 0.2 ± 0.01%.
Flattening filter free (FFF) beams are now commonly available with new standard linear accelerators. These beams have recognised clinical advantages in certain circumstances, most notably the reduced beam-on times for high dose per fraction stereotactic treatments. Therefore FFF techniques are quickly being introduced into clinical use. The purpose of this report is to provide practical implementation advice and references for centres implementing FFF beams clinically. In particular UK-specific guidance is given for reference dosimetry and radiation protection.
Intensity modulated radiation therapy can be achieved by driving the leaves of a multileaf collimator (MLC) across an x-ray therapy beam. Algorithms to generate the required leaf trajectories assume that the leaf positions are exactly known to the MLC controller. In practice, leaf positions depend upon calibration accuracy and stability and may vary within set tolerances. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of potential leaf position inaccuracies on intensity modulated beams. Equations are derived which quantify the absolute error in delivered monitor units given a known error in leaf position. The equations have been verified by ionization chamber measurements in dynamically delivered flat fields, comparing deliveries in which known displacements have been applied to the defined leaf positions with deliveries without displacements applied. The equations are then applied to two clinical intensity modulations: an inverse planned prostate field and a breast compensating field. It is shown that leaf position accuracy is more critical for a highly modulated low-dose intensity profile than a moderately modulated high-dose intensity profile. Suggestions are given regarding the implications for quality control of dynamic MLC treatments.
Multileaf collimator (MLC) calibration and quality control is a time-consuming procedure typically involving the processing, scanning and analysis of films to measure leaf and collimator positions. Faster and more reliable calibration procedures are required for these tasks, especially with the introduction of intensity modulated radiotherapy which requires more frequent checking and finer positional leaf tolerances than previously. A routine quality control (QC) technique to measure MLC leaf bank gain and offset, as well as minor offsets (individual leaf position relative to a reference leaf), using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID) has been developed. The technique also tests the calibration of the primary and back-up collimators. A detailed comparison between film and EPID measurements has been performed for six linear accelerators (linacs) equipped with MLC and amorphous silicon EPIDs. Measurements of field size from 4 to 24 cm with the EPID were systematically smaller than film measurements over all field sizes by 0.4 mm for leaves/back-up collimators and by 0.2 mm for conventional collimators. This effect is due to the gain calibration correction applied by the EPID, resulting in a 'flattening' of primary beam profiles. Linac dependent systematic differences of up to 0.5 mm in individual leaf/collimator positions were also found between EPID and film measurements due to the difference between the mechanical and radiation axes of rotation. When corrections for these systematic differences were applied, the residual random differences between EPID and film were 0.23 mm and 0.26 mm (1 standard deviation) for field size and individual leaf/back-up collimator position, respectively. Measured gains (over a distance of 220 mm) always agreed within 0.4 mm with a standard deviation of 0.17 mm. Minor offset measurements gave a mean agreement between EPID and film of 0.01+/-0.10 mm (1 standard deviation) after correction for the tilt of the EPID and small rotational misalignments between leaf banks and the back-up collimators used as a reference straight edge. Reproducibility of EPID measurements was found to be very high, with a standard deviation of <0.05 mm for field size and <0.1 mm for individual leaf/collimator positions for a 10x10 cm2 field. A standard set of QC images (three field sizes defined both by leaves only and collimators only) can be acquired in less than 20 min and analysed in 5 min.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.