Purpose: A 1.5 T MR Linac (MRL) has recently become available. MRL treatment workflows (WF) include online plan adaptation based on daily MR images (MRI). This study reports initial clinical experiences after five months of use in terms of patient compliance, cases, WF timings, and dosimetric accuracy. Method and materials: Two different WF were used dependent on the clinical situation of the day; Adapt To Position WF (ATP) where the reference plan position is adjusted rigidly to match the position of the targets and the OARs, and Adapt To Shape WF (ATS), where a new plan is created to match the anatomy of the day, using deformable image registration. Both WFs included three 3D MRI scans for plan adaptation, verification before beam on, and validation during IMRT delivery. Patient compliance and WF timings were recorded. Accuracy in dose delivery was assessed using a cylindrical diode phantom. Results: 19 patients have completed their treatment receiving a total of 176 fractions. Cases vary from prostate treatments (60 Gy/20F) to SBRT treatments of lymph nodes (45 Gy/3F) and castration by ovarian irradiation (15 Gy/3F). The median session time (patient in to patient out) for 127 ATPs was 26[21-78] min, four fractions lasted more than 45 minutes due to additional plan adaptation. For the 49 ATSs a median time of 12[1-24] min was used for contouring resulting in a total median session time of 42[29-91] min. Three SBRT fractions lasted more than an hour. The time on the MRL couch was well tolerated by the patients. The median gamma pass rate (2mm,2% global max) for the adapted plans was 99.2[93.4-100]%, showing good agreement between planned and delivered dose. Conclusion: MRL treatments, including daily MRIs, plan adaptation and accurate dose delivery is possible within a clinically acceptable timeframe and is well tolerated by the patients.

Objective: In radiotherapy treatments, it is crucial to monitor the performance of linear accelerator (linac) components, including gantry, collimation system and electronic portal imaging device (EPID) during arc deliveries. In this study, a simple EPID-based measurement method is suggested in conjunction with an algorithm to investigate the stability of these systems at various gantry angles with the aim of evaluating machinerelated errors in treatments. Methods: The EPID sag, gantry sag, changes in source-todetector distance (SDD), EPID and collimator skewness, EPID tilt and the sag in leaf bank assembly owing to linac rotation were separately investigated by acquisition of 37 EPID images of a simple phantom with 5 ball bearings at various gantry angles. A fast and robust software package was developed for automated analysis of the image data. Nine Elekta AB (Stockholm, Sweden) linacs of different models and number of years in service were investigated. Results: The average EPID sag was within 2 mm for all tested linacs. Some machines showed .1-mm gantry sag. Changes in the SDD values were within 1.3 cm. EPID skewness and tilt values were ,1°in all machines. The maximum sag in multileaf collimator leaf bank assemblies was around 1 mm. A meaningful correlation was found between the age of the linacs and their mechanical performance. Conclusions and Advances in knowledge:The method and software developed in this study provide a simple tool for effective investigation of the behaviour of Elekta linac components with gantry rotation. Such a comprehensive study has been performed for the first time on Elekta machines.

No abstract

The clinical introduction of hybrid magnetic resonance (MR) guided radiotherapy (RT) delivery systems has led to the need to validate the end-to-end dose delivery performance on such machines. In the current study, an MR visible phantom was developed and used to test the spatial deviation between planned and delivered dose at two 1.5 T MR linear accelerator (MR linac) systems, including pre-treatment imaging, dose planning, online imaging, image registration, plan adaptation, and dose delivery. The phantom consisted of 3D printed plastic and MR visible silicone rubber. It was designed to minimise air gaps close to the radiochromic film used as a dosimeter. Furthermore, the phantom was designed to allow submillimetre, reproducible positioning of the film in the phantom. At both MR linac systems, 54 complete adaptive, MR guided RT workflow sessions were performed. To test the dose delivery performance of the MR linac systems in various adaptive RT (ART) scenarios, the sessions comprised a range of systematic positional shifts of the phantom and imaging or plan adaptation conditions. In each workflow session, the positional translation between the film and the adaptive planned dose was determined. The results showed that the accuracy of the MR linac systems was between 0.1 and 0.9 mm depending on direction. The highest mean deviance observed was in the posterior–anterior direction, and the direction of the error was consistent between centres. The precision of the systems was related to whether the workflow utilized the internal image registration algorithm of the MR linac. Workflows using the internal registration algorithm led to a worse precision (0.2–0.7 mm) compared to workflows where the algorithm was decoupled (0.2 mm). In summary, the spatial deviation between planned and delivered dose of MR-guided ART at the two MR linac systems was well below 1 mm and thus acceptable for clinical use.