Evaluation of candidate template beam models for a matched TrueBeam treatment delivery system.

Abstract

PurposeTo explore candidate RayStation beam models to serve as a class‐specific template for a TrueBeam treatment delivery system.MethodsEstablished validation techniques were used to evaluate three photon beam models: a clinically optimized model from the authors’ institution, the built‐in RayStation template, and a hybrid consisting of the RayStation template except substituting average MLC parameter values from a recent IROC survey. Comparisons were made for output factors, dose profiles from open fields, as well as representative VMAT test plans.ResultsFor jaw‐defined output factors, each beam model was within 1.6% of expected published values. Similarly, the majority (57–66%) of jaw‐defined dose curves from each model had a gamma pass rate >95% (2% / 3 mm, 20% threshold) when compared to TrueBeam representative beam data. For dose curves from MPPG 5.a MLC‐defined fields, average gamma pass rates (1% / 1 mm, 20% threshold) were 92.9%, 85.1%, and 86.0% for the clinical, template, and hybrid models, respectively. For VMAT test plans measured with a diode array detector, median dose differences were 0.6%, 1.3%, and 1.1% for the clinical, template, and hybrid models, respectively. For in‐phantom ionization chamber measurements with the same VMAT test plans, the average percent difference was −0.3%, −1.4%, and −1.0% for the clinical, template, and hybrid models, respectively.ConclusionBeam model templates taken from the vendor and aggregate results within the community were both reasonable starting points, but neither approach was as optimal as a clinically tuned model, the latter producing better agreement with all validation measurements. Given these results, the clinically optimized model represents a better candidate as a consensus template. This can benefit the community by reducing commissioning time and improving dose calculation accuracy for matched TrueBeam treatment delivery systems.