MR image-guided radiotherapy has the potential to improve patient care, but integration of an MRI scanner with a linear accelerator adds complexity to the commissioning process. This work describes a single institution experience of commissioning an Elekta Unity MR-linac, including mechanical testing, MRI scanner commissioning, and dosimetric validation. Mechanical testing included multileaf collimator (MLC) positional accuracy, measurement of radiation isocenter diameter, and MR-to-MV coincidence. Key MRI tests included magnetic field homogeneity, geometric accuracy, image quality, and the accuracy of navigator-triggered imaging for motion management. Dosimetric validation consisted of comparison between measured and calculated PDDs and profiles, IMRT measurements, and end-to-end testing. Multileaf collimator positional accuracy was within 1.0 mm, the measured radiation isocenter walkout was 0.20 mm, and the coincidence between MR and MV isocenter was 1.06 mm, which is accounted for in the treatment planning system (TPS). For a 350mm-diameter spherical volume, the peak-to-peak deviation of the magnetic field homogeneity was 4.44 ppm and the geometric distortion was 0.8 mm. All image quality metrics were within ACR recommendations. Navigator-triggered images showed a maximum deviation of 0.42, 0.75, and 3.0 mm in the target centroid location compared to the stationary target for a 20 mm motion at 10, 15, and 20 breaths per minute, respectively. TPS-calculated PDDs and profiles showed excellent agreement with measurement. The gamma passing rate for IMRT plans was 98.4 ± 1.1% (3%/ 2 mm) and end-to-end testing of adapted plans showed agreement within 0.4% between ion-chamber measurement and TPS calculation. All credentialing criteria were satisfied in an independent end-to-end test using an IROC MRgRT phantom.

The exclusive use of EPID-based QA tools, including a QA phantom and simultaneous analysis software tools, has been demonstrated as a viable, efficient, and comprehensive process for daily evaluation of LINAC performance.

Recent availability of MRI-guided linear accelerators has introduced a number of clinical challenges, particularly in the context of online plan adaptation. Paramount among these is verification of plan quality prior to patient treatment. Currently, there are no commercial products available for monitor unit verification that fully support the newly FDA cleared Elekta Unity 1.5 T MRI-linac. In this work, we investigate the accuracy and precision of RadCalc for this purpose, which is a software package that uses a Clarkson integration algorithm for point dose calculation. To this end, 18 IMRT patient plans (186 individual beams) were created and used for Rad-Calc point dose calculations. In comparison with the primary treatment planning system (Monaco), mean point dose deviations of 0.0 ± 1.0% (n = 18) and 1.7 ± 12.4% (n = 186) were obtained on a per-plan and per-beam basis, respectively. The dose plane comparison functionality within RadCalc was found to be highly inaccurate, however, modest improvements could be made by artificially shifting jaws and multi leaf collimator positions to account for the dosimetric shift due to the magnetic field (67.3% vs 96.5% mean 5%/5 mm gamma pass rate). K E Y W O R D S dose calculation, Elekta Unity, MRI-Linac, RadCalc The first 1.5 T MRI-equipped linear accelerator (Elekta Unity, Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) was cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December of 2018. Coupling a high-magnetic field MRI with a linear accelerator introduces a number of commissioning and routine quality assurance challenges that are not associated with conventional linear accelerators. Notably, all equipment ---

Experimental methods are commonly used for patient‐specific IMRT delivery verification. There are a variety of IMRT QA techniques which have been proposed and clinically used with a common understanding that not one single method can detect all possible errors. The aim of this work was to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis to conventional measurement‐based methods in detecting errors in IMRT delivery. Sixteen IMRT treatment plans (5 head‐and‐neck, 3 rectum, 3 breast, and 5 prostate plans) created with a commercial treatment planning system (TPS) were recalculated on a QA phantom. All treatment plans underwent ion chamber (IC) and 2D diode array measurements. The same set of plans was also recomputed with another commercial treatment planning system and the two sets of calculations were compared. The deviations between dosimetric measurements and independent dose calculation were evaluated. The comparisons included evaluations of DVHs and point doses calculated by the two TPS systems. Machine log files were captured during pretreatment composite point dose measurements and analyzed to verify data transfer and performance of the delivery machine. Average deviation between IC measurements and point dose calculations with the two TPSs for head‐and‐neck plans were 1.2±1.3% and 1.4±1.6%, respectively. For 2D diode array measurements, the mean gamma value with 3% dose difference and 3 mm distance‐to‐agreement was within 1.5% for 13 of 16 plans. The mean 3D dose differences calculated from two TPSs were within 3% for head‐and‐neck cases and within 2% for other plans. The machine log file analysis showed that the gantry angle, jaw position, collimator angle, and MUs were consistent as planned, and maximal MLC position error was less than 0.5 mm. The independent dose calculation followed by the machine log analysis takes an average 47±6 minutes, while the experimental approach (using IC and 2D diode array measurements) takes an average about 2 hours in our clinic. Independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis can be a reliable tool to verify IMRT treatments. Additionally, independent dose calculations have the potential to identify several problems (heterogeneity calculations, data corruptions, system failures) with the primary TPS, which generally are not identifiable with a measurement‐based approach. Additionally, machine log file analysis can identify many problems (gantry, collimator, jaw setting) which also may not be detected with a measurement‐based approach. Machine log file analysis could also detect performance problems for individual MLC leaves which could be masked in the analysis of a measured fluence.PACS numbers: 87.53.Bn, 87.55.Qr, 87.55.km, 87.57.Uq

No abstract

While the human is the ultimate expert, EcCk has a significant potential to improve quality and efficiency of patient treatment record audits, and to allow verification of tasks that are not easily performed by humans. EcCk can potentially relieve human experts from simple and repetitive tasks, and allow them to work on other important tasks, and in the end to improve the quality and safety of radiation therapy treatments.

Normalize the response of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is the first step toward an EPID‐based standardization of Linear Accelerator (linac) dosimetry quality assurance. In this study, we described an approach to generate two‐dimensional (2D) pixel sensitivity maps (PSM) for EPIDs response normalization utilizing an alternative beam and dark‐field (ABDF) image acquisition technique and large overlapping field irradiations. The automated image acquisition was performed by XML‐controlled machine operation and the PSM was generated based on a recursive calculation algorithm for Varian linacs equipped with aS1000 and aS1200 imager panels. Cross‐comparisons of normalized beam profiles and 1.5%/1.5 mm 1D Gamma analysis was adopted to quantify the improvement of beam profile matching before and after PSM corrections. PSMs were derived for both photon (6, 10, 15 MV) and electron (6, 20 MeV) beams via proposed method. The PSM‐corrected images reproduced a horn‐shaped profile for photon beams and a relative uniform profiles for electrons. For dosimetrically matched linacs equipped with aS1000 panels, PSM‐corrected images showed increased 1D‐Gamma passing rates for all energies, with an average 10.5% improvement for crossline and 37% for inline beam profiles. Similar improvements in the phantom study were observed with a maximum improvement of 32% for 15 MV and 22% for 20 MeV. The PSM value showed no significant change for all energies over a 3‐month period. In conclusion, the proposed approach correct EPID response for both aS1000 and aS1200 panels. This strategy enables the possibility to standardize linac dosimetry QA and to benchmark linac performance utilizing EPID as the common detector.

On-board imagers are quite suitable for both geometric and dosimetric testing of linac system involved in AT. Electronic format of the acquired data lends itself to benchmarking, transparency, as well as longitudinal use of AT data. While the tests were performed on a specific model of a linear accelerator, the proposed approach can be extended to other linacs.