The Radixact® linear accelerator contains the motion Synchrony system, which tracks and compensates for intrafraction patient motion. For respiratory motion, the system models the motion of the target and synchronizes the delivery of radiation with this motion using the jaws and multi‐leaf collimators (MLCs). It was the purpose of this work to determine the ability of the Synchrony system to track and compensate for different phantom motions using a delivery quality assurance (DQA) workflow. Thirteen helical plans were created on static datasets from liver, lung, and pancreas subjects. Dose distributions were measured using a Delta4® Phantom+ mounted on a Hexamotion® stage for the following three case scenarios for each plan: (a) no phantom motion and no Synchrony (M0S0), (b) phantom motion and no Synchrony (M1S0), and (c) phantom motion with Synchrony (M1S1). The LEDs were placed on the Phantom+ for the 13 patient cases and were placed on a separate one‐dimensional surrogate stage for additional studies to investigate the effect of separate target and surrogate motion. The root‐mean‐square (RMS) error between the Synchrony‐modeled positions and the programmed phantom positions was <1.5 mm for all Synchrony deliveries with the LEDs on the Phantom+. The tracking errors increased slightly when the LEDs were placed on the surrogate stage but were similar to tracking errors observed for other motion tracking systems such as CyberKnife Synchrony. One‐dimensional profiles indicate the effects of motion interplay and dose blurring present in several of the M1S0 plans that are not present in the M1S1 plans. All 13 of the M1S1 measured doses had gamma pass rates (3%/2 mm/10%T) compared to the planned dose > 90%. Only two of the M1S0 measured doses had gamma pass rates > 90%. Motion Synchrony offers a potential alternative to the current, ITV‐based motion management strategy for helical tomotherapy deliveries.

Purpose: Synchrony is a motion management system available on the Radixact linear accelerator that utilizes kilovoltage (kV) radiographs to track target motion and synchronize the delivery of radiation with the motion. Proper management of this imaging dose requires accurate quantification. The purpose of this work was to use Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to quantify organ-specific patient doses from these images for various patient anatomies. Methods: Point doses in water were measured per TG-61 for three beam qualities commonly used on the Radixact. The point doses were used to benchmark a model of the imaging system built using the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code. Patient computed tomography (CT) datasets were obtained for 5 patients and 100 planar images were simulated for each patient. Patient dose was calculated using energy deposition mesh tallies. Results: The MCNP model was able to accurately reproduce the measured point doses, with a median dose difference of less than 1%. The median dose (D 50%) to soft tissue from 100 radiographs among the 5 patient cases ranged from 2.0 to 4.6 mGy. The max dose (D 1%) to soft tissue ranged from 6.2 to 31.0 mGy and the max dose to bony structures ranged from 20.2 to 71.7 mGy. These doses can be scaled to estimate total patient dose throughout many fractions. Conclusions: Patient dose is largely dependent on imaging protocol, patient size, and treatment parameters such as fractionation and gantry period. Organ doses from 100 radiographs (an approximate number for one fraction) on the Radixact are slightly less than the doses from Tomo MVCT setup images. Careful selection of clinical protocols and planning parameters can be used to minimize risk from these images.

ClearRT helical kVCT imaging for the Radixact helical tomotherapy system recently received FDA approval and is available for clinical use. The system is intended to enhance image fidelity in radiation therapy treatment planning and delivery compared to the prior MV‐based onboard imaging approach. The purpose of this work was to characterize the imaging performance of this system and compare this performance with that of clinical systems used in image‐guided and/or adaptive radiotherapy (ART) or computed tomography (CT) simulation, including Radixact MVCT, TomoTherapy MVCT, Varian TrueBeam kV OBI CBCT, and the Siemens SOMATOM Definition Edge kVCT. A CT image quality phantom was scanned across clinically relevant acquisition modes for each system to evaluate image quality metrics, including noise, uniformity, contrast, spatial resolution, and CT number linearity. Similar noise levels were observed for ClearRT and Siemens Edge, whereas noise for the other systems was ∼1.5–5 times higher. Uniformity was best for Siemens Edge, whereas most scans for ClearRT exhibited a slight “cupping” or “capping” artifact. The ClearRT and Siemens Edge performed best for contrast metrics, which included low‐contrast visibility and contrast‐to‐noise ratio evaluations. Spatial resolution was best for TrueBeam and Siemens Edge, whereas the three kVCT systems exhibited similar CT number linearity. Overall, these results provide an initial indication that ClearRT image quality is adequate for image guidance in radiotherapy and sufficient for delineating anatomic structures, thus enabling its use for ART. ClearRT also showed significant improvement over MVCT, which was previously the only onboard imaging modality available on Radixact. Although the acquisition of these scans does come at the cost of additional patient dose, reported CTDI values indicate a similar or generally reduced machine output for ClearRT compared to the other systems while maintaining comparable or improved image quality overall.

No abstract

The Synchrony motion management system on the Radixact linear accelerator (Accuray Inc.) uses kilovoltage (kV) planar radiographs to localize the target during helical tomotherapy treatments. [1][2][3] The dose the patients receive from these kV radiographs has been investigated in several previous publications. 4,5 A description of the motion management system can also be found in these publications.