Golden Beam Research Articles

Examining Beam Matching in the Commissioning of a Halcyon Accelerator

This study aims to describe the steps needed to be made in developing a commissioning report of a Halcyon linear accelerator utilizing the manufacturer’s golden beam data (GBD) as a reference in making the evaluation. The platform herein has determined the performance alignment of our local machine with the GBD obtained through comprehensive analyses. This made use of the gamma index and relative dose difference. This paper details the methodologies and outcomes of comparing local measurements against GBD during commissioning. For the Halcyon linear accelerator, dosimetric data, including percentage depth doses, dose profiles, and output factors, were acquired using a three-dimensional scanning water tank and various ionization chambers. The GBD were exported from the treatment planning system and compared to the measurements. To evaluate the agreement between the GBD and measurements, gamma index and relative dose difference analyses were conducted. For field sizes greater than 4 × 4 cm2, percentage depth doses and beam profiles, the gamma indices between GBD and measurements were less than 1%/1 mm. The gamma indices were found to be slightly greater for field sizes 2 × 2 cm2 and 4 × 4 cm2, remaining within 2%/2 mm, satisfying the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5 for commissioning and quality assurance of mega-volt photon beams. Deviations in the output factor between the GBD and measurements were not significant, remaining within 1%. The GBD data were evaluated in the commissioning of a Halcyon linear accelerator, with analyses being made of the gamma index and relative dose difference. The gamma index analysis is shown to be an effective method for comprehensively evaluating deviations between the GBD and measurements in the beam matching process.

O 35 - Can we establish the golden beam data approach for Proteus One system?

O 35 - Can we establish the golden beam data approach for Proteus One system?

Photon beam modeling: A comparative study of primo and gate simulation toolkits for the TrueBeam STx Linac

This study compares the PRIMO and GATE Monte Carlo simulation toolkits for modeling photon beams from a TrueBeam STx Linac used in radiation therapy. Various beam configurations were evaluated against Varian's Golden Beam Data using the Gamma Index method. Both toolkits demonstrated good agreement overall, with GATE generally achieving higher gamma pass rates for percent depth dose curves than PRIMO.

Comprehensive commissioning and quality assurance validation of Ethos™ therapy

PurposeAdaptive radiotherapy with the Ethos® therapy Varian system has been recently implemented at the Montpellier Cancer Institute, France. This article details the commissioning performed before the implementation of this new treatment planning system (TPS). Material and methodsTo validate the golden beam data of the machine (Halcyon linear accelerator), percentage depth doses (PDD) and profiles were measured for several field sizes and at different depths with a microdiamond chamber. The final doses calculated for different plan types with the Ethos Acuros XB algorithm and the Halcyon Eclipse Analytic Anisotropic Algorithm were compared using the gamma index method. Lastly, for the patient quality assurance (QA) process, the patient treatment plan results obtained with the Mobius3D QA platform (Varian) were compared with the portal dosimetry results obtained with Epiqa (Epidos). ResultsMinor differences were observed for the PDD and profile curves (mean difference of 0.2% and 2%, respectively). The χ index pass rate was above 98% for all measures using the 1%/1mm and 2%/2mm criteria for PDD and profile evaluations. The Ethos AXB algorithm was validated for every configuration (fixed fields, standard IMRT and VMAT fields, and clinical plans) with 2D/3D gamma index values>99%. Seventy-three 3-arcs-VMAT QA plans and 27 9-fields-IMRT QA plans were evaluated. Both showed excellent agreement with the TPS calculations (mean gamma pass rate higher than 99%). No difference was observed between IMRT and VMAT. ConclusionThe beam delivery, the Ethos AXB algorithm, and the patient QA were comprehensively validated using independent tools.

Varian eclipse stereotactic 5mm cone data commissioning.

Conical collimators are effective and readily available accessories for the field shaping of small stereotactic fields, however the measurements required to accurately characterise the smallest radiation fields are difficult, prone to large errors, and there is little published commissioning data to compare measurements against. The aim of this investigation was to commission the cone dose calculation algorithm of a Varian Eclipse treatment planning system for a Varian 5mm cone attached to a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator beam-matched to the Varian Golden Beam Data (GBD). Tissue maximum ratios (TMRs) and off-axis ratios (OARs) were measured using PTW 60019 microDiamond and PTW 60018 SRS Diode detectors for a flattening filter free 6MV beam. The output factor (OF) was measured with the microDiamond and EBT-XD film. Results were compared to the GBD for this cone and an OF measured by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service during an independent audit. Film dosimetry was used to evaluate Eclipse dose calculations in a solid water phantom and end-to-end accuracy with an anthropomorphic head phantom. Output correction factors were derived from IAEA TRS-483. Gamma analysis was used to compare measured TMRs and OARs, and to compare Eclipse dose planes with film dosimetry results. Comparisons between measured and GBD TMRs passed gamma analysis within the specified criteria, while differences between distances to agreement for OARs measured with different detectors was attributed to different volume averaging characteristics. The OFs measured with the microDiamond and film agreed within measurement uncertainty. It was decided to configure Eclipse with the microDiamond measured OF and the SRS Diode measured TMR and OAR data. This was validated with various comparisons carried out to confirm both measurement accuracy and Eclipse configuration.

A multivariate approach to determine electron beam parameters for a Monte Carlo 6 MV Linac model: Statistical and machine learning methods.

This study aimed to determine the optimal initial electron beam parameters of a Linac for radiotherapy with a multivariate approach using statistical and machine-learning tools. For MC beam commissioning, a 6MV Varian Clinac was simulated using the Geant4 toolkit. The authors investigated the relations between simulated dose distribution and initial electron beam parameters, namely, mean energy (E), energy spread (ES), and radial beam size (RS). The goodness of simulation was evaluated by the slope of differences between the simulated and the golden beam data. The best-fit combination of the electron beam parameters that minimized the slope of dose difference was searched through multivariate methods using conventional statistical methods and machine-learning tools of the scikit-learn library. Simulation results with 87 combinations of the electron beam parameters were analyzed. Regardless of being univariate or multivariate, traditional statistical models did not recommend a single parameter set simultaneously minimizing slope of dose differences for percent depth dose (PDD) and lateral dose profile (LDP). Two machine learning classification modules, RandomForestClassifier and BaggingClassifier, agreed in recommending (E=6.3MeV, ES = ±5.0%, RS=1.0mm) for predicting simultaneous acceptance of PDD and LDP. The machine learning with random-forest and bagging classifier modules recommended a consistent result. It was possible to draw an optimal electron beam parameter set using multivariate methods for MC simulation of a radiotherapy 6 MV Linac.

Evaluation of differences and dosimetric influences of beam models using golden and multi‐institutional measured beam datasets in radiation treatment planning systems

The beam model in radiation treatment planning systems (RTPSs) plays a crucial role in determining the accuracy of calculated dose distributions. The purpose of this study was to ascertain differences in beam models and their dosimetric influences when a golden beam dataset (GBD) and multi-institution measured beam datasets (MBDs) are used for beam modeling in RTPSs. The MBDs collected from 15 institutions, and the MBDs' beam models, were compared with a GBD, and the GBD's beam model, for Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. The calculated dose distributions of the MBDs' beam models were compared with those of the GBD's beam model for simple geometries in a water phantom. Calculated dose distributions were similarly evaluated in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for TG-119 C-shape and TG-244 head and neck, at several dose constraints of the planning target volumes (PTVs), and organs at risk. The agreements of the MBDs with the GBD were almost all within ±1%. The calculated dose distributions for simple geometries in a water phantom also closely corresponded between the beam models of GBD and MBDs. Nevertheless, there were considerable differences between the beam models. The maximum differences between the mean energy of the energy spectra of GBD and MBDs were -0.12MeV (-10.5%) in AcurosXB (AXB, Eclipse) and 0.11MeV (7.7%) in collapsed cone convolution (CCC, RayStation). The differences in the VMAT calculated dose distributions varied for each dose region, plan, X-ray energy, and dose calculation algorithm. The ranges of the differences in the dose constraints were -5.6% to 3.0% for AXB and -24.1% to 2.8% for CCC. In several VMAT plans, the calculated dose distributions of GBD's beam model tended to be lower in high-dose regions and higher in low-dose regions than those of the MBDs' beam models. We found that small differences in beam data have large impacts on the beam models, and on calculated dose distributions in clinical VMAT plan, even if beam data correspond within ±1%. GBD's beam model was not a representative beam model. The beam models of GBD and MBDs and their calculated dose distributions under clinical conditions were significantly different. These differences are most likely due to the extensive variation in the beam models, reflecting the characteristics of beam data. The energy spectrum and radial energy in the beam model varied in a wide range, even if the differences in the beam data were <±1%. To minimize the uncertainty of the calculated dose distributions in clinical plans, it was best to use the institutional MBD for beam modeling, or the beam model that ensures the accuracy of calculated dose distributions.

Assessing small-field output factors using a 2D monolithic diode array on a beam-matched Elekta linear accelerator

The goal of this work was to assess small-field output factors (OPF) on a newly commissioned linear accelerator (linac) using a ‘correction-less’ 2D monolithic array of diodes, the Duo, which has a spatial resolution of 0.2 mm. The results would validate a set of OPF extracted from the golden beam data (GBD) used to represent the dosimetric characteristics of that linac, an Elekta Versa HD (Elekta, Crawley), fit with an Agility multileaf collimator (MLC). The Duo acquired relative OPF in real time for square fields of nominal side 1, 2, 3 and 4 cm, for 6 MV with flattening filter (WFF) and 6 MV flattening filter free (FFF) photon energies. Results revealed at most a 1.0% difference in OPF when compared to baseline, and bolstered confidence in the acceptance and commissioning of the linac using local GBD as a baseline match.

Linac photon beam fine-tuning in PRIMO using the gamma-index analysis toolkit

BackgroundIn Monte Carlo simulations, the fine-tuning of linac beam parameters to produce a good match between simulated and measured dose profiles is a lengthy, time-consuming and resource-intensive process. The objective of this study is to utilize the results of the gamma-index analysis toolkit embedded inside the windows-based PRIMO software package to yield a truncated linac photon beam fine-tuning process.MethodsUsing PRIMO version 0.1.5.1307, a Varian Clinac 2100 is simulated at two nominal energy configurations of 6 MV and 10 MV for varying number of histories from 106 to more than 108. The dose is tallied on a homogeneous water phantom with dimensions 16.2 × 16.2 × 31.0 cm3 at a source-to-surface-distance of 100.0 cm. For each nominal energy setting, two initial electron beam energies are configured to reproduce the measured percent depth dose (PDD) distribution. Once the initial beam energy is fixed, several beam configurations are sequentially simulated to determine the parameters yielding good agreement with the measured lateral dose profiles. The simulated dose profiles are compared with the Varian Golden Beam Data Set (GBDS) using the gamma-index analysis method incorporating the dose-difference and distance-to-agreement criteria. The simulations are run on Pentium-type computers while the tuned 10 MV beam configuration is simulated at more than 108 histories using a virtual server in the Amazon.com Elastic Compute Cloud.ResultsThe initial electron beam energy configuration that will likely reproduce the measured PDD is determined by comparing directly the gamma-index analysis results of two different beam configurations. The configuration is indicated to yield good agreement with data if the gamma-index passing rates using the 1%/1 mm criteria generally increase as the number of histories is increased. Additionally at the highest number of histories, the matching configuration gives a much higher passing rate at the 1%/1 mm acceptance criteria over the other competing configuration. With the matching initial electron beam energy known, this input to the subsequent simulations allows the fine-tuning of the lateral beam profiles to proceed at a fixed yet lower number of histories. In a three-stage serial optimization procedure, the first remaining beam parameter is varied and the highest passing rate at the 1%/1 mm criteria is determined. This optimum value is input to the second stage and the procedure is repeated until all the remaining beam parameters are optimized. The final tuned beam configuration is then simulated at much higher number of histories and the good agreement with the measured dose distributions is verified.ConclusionsAs physical nature is not stingy, it reveals at low statistics what is hidden at high statistics. In the matter of fine-tuning a linac to conform with measurements, this characteristic is exploited directly by the PRIMO software package. PRIMO is an automated, self-contained and full Monte Carlo linac simulator and dose calculator. It embeds the gamma-index analysis toolkit which can be used to determine all the parameters of the initial electron beam configuration at relatively lower number of histories before the full simulation is run at very high statistics. In running the full simulation, the Amazon.com compute cloud proves to be a very cost-effective and reliable platform. These results are significant because of the time required to run full-blown simulations especially for resource-deficient communities where there could just be one computer as their sole workhorse.

Monte Carlo simulation using PRIMO code as a tool for checking the credibility of commissioning and quality assurance of 6 MV TrueBeam STx varian LINAC.

To validate and implement Monte Carlo simulation using PRIMO code as a tool for checking the credibility of measurements in LINAC initial commissioning and routine Quality Assurance (QA). Relative and absolute doses of 6MV photon beam from TrueBeam STx Varian Linear Accelerator (LINAC) were simulated and validated with experimental measurement, Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) calculation, and golden beam. Varian phase-space files were imported to the PRIMO code and four blocks of jaws were simulated to determine the field size of the photon beam. Water phantom was modeled in the PRIMO code with water equivalent density. Golden beam data, experimental measurement, and AAA calculation results were imported to PRIMO code for gamma comparison. PRIMO simulations of Percentage Depth Dose (PDD) and in-plane beam profiles had good agreement with experimental measurements, AAA calculations and golden beam. However, PRIMO simulations of cross-plane beam profiles have a better agreement with AAA calculation and golden beam than the experimental measurement. Furthermore, PRIMO simulations of absolute dose agreed well with experimental results with ±0.8% uncertainty. The PRIMO code has good accuracy and is appropriate for use as a tool to check the credibility of beam scanning and output measurement in initial commissioning and routine QA.

Efficient Commissioning of the Radiotherapy Treatment Planning System with the Golden Beam Data

Commissioning of a linear accelerator (Linac) and treatment planning systems (RTPs) for clinical use is complex and time-consuming, typically 3-4 months in total. However, based on clinical needs and economics, hospitals desire early clinical starts for patients, and various studies have been conducted for shortening the preparation period. One of the methods to shorten the period is using golden beam data (GBD). The purpose of this study was to shorten the commissioning period without reducing accuracy and to simplify commissioning works while improving safety. We conducted commissioning of the RTPs before installing the Linac using GBD, and carried out verification immediately after the acceptance test. We used TrueBeam STx (Varian Medical Systems) and Eclipse (ver. 13.7, Varian Medical Systems) for RTPs and anisotropic analysis algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) for calculation algorithms. The difference between GBD and the measured beam data was 0.0 ± 0.2% [percentage depth dose (PDDs) ] and -0.1 ± 0.2% (Profiles) with X-ray, and -1.2 ± 1.3% (PDDs) with electrons. The difference between the calculated dose and the measured dose was 0.1 ± 0.3% (AAA) and 0.0 ± 0.3% (AXB) under homogeneous conditions, and 0.7 ± 1.4% (AAA) and 0.6 ± 1.1% (AXB) under heterogeneous conditions. We took 43 days from the end of the acceptance test to the start of clinical use. We found that the preparation period for clinical use can be shortened without reducing the accuracy, by thinning out the number of measurement items using GBD.

OA036] Clinical implementation and evaluation of the Mobius3D system for independent dose calculation

Purpose The complexity of dose planning and treatment delivery systems has increased and necessitates a more comprehensive physics quality assurance (QA). These QA checks can, however, be quite time consuming. Therefore, there is a need for automation of QA which usually rely on empirically established tolerance levels. Mobius3D is a commercial fully automated QA system that uses a collapsed cone convolution/superposition algorithm for verification of treatment plans. The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of deviation between this system and the clinical commissioned treatment planning system (Eclipse v.13.5) using the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm when the MLC modeling was optimized. Methods The Mobius3D system comes with golden beam data and calculates the dose on the patient CT data set. For MLC optimization, 8 IMRT/VMAT plans from various anatomical regions were included and recalculated in a cylindrical plastic phantom containing two planar diode arrays (Delta4 phantom, ScandiDos). The plans were then verified experimentally at the accelerator and all passed a local 3%/2 mm gamma criteria (passing rate > 90%). The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) used to model the MLC in Mobius3D was optimized to keep the PTV mean dose of the 8 plans within 2% in the Delta4 geometry resulting in a +0.6 mm adjustment of the DLG from the default value. To establish the level of dose deviation and establish acceptance criteria, 34 treatment plans in different geometries, such us lung (10), head and neck (HN, 10), and pelvis (14) were evaluated for both IMRT and VMAT. Results The absolute mean and max PTV dose deviation for (lung/HN/pelvis) were: 0.8/2.2/2.1% and 1.4/2.9/2.8%. All max deviations were positive, i.e. a higher dose estimate by Mobius3D. 5 HN IMRT plans before DLG adjustment all showed negative deviations of −3.12/−3.8% (PTV mean/max). Conclusions A random sample of treatment plans were within 2.5% in absolute mean dose of the PTV between Mobius3D and the TPS. MLC parameter optimization plays an important role in establishing an acceptance criterion.

Open beam dosimetric characteristics of True Beam medical linear accelerator with flattening filter (WFF) and flattening filter free (FFF) beam

Abstract True Beam medical linear accelerator is capable of delivering flattening filter free (FFF) and with flattening filter (WFF) photon beams. True Beam linear accelerator is equipped with five photon beam energies (6 FFF, 6 WFF, 10 FFF, 10 WFF and 15 WFF) as well as six electron beam energies (6 MeV, 9 MeV, 12 MeV, 15 MeV and 18 MeV). The maximum dose rate for the 6 WFF, 10 WFF and 15 WFF is 600 MU/min, whereas 6 FFF has a maximum dose rate of 1400 MU/min and 10 FFF with a maximum dose rate of 2400 MU/min. In this report we discussed the open beam dosimetric characteristics of True Beam medical linear accelerator with FFF and WFF beam. All the dosimetric data (i.e. depth dose, cross-line profiles, diagonal profiles, output factors, MLC transmission, etc.) for 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, 10 FFF and 15 MV were measured and compared with the published data of the True Beam. Multiple detectors were used in order to obtain a consistent dataset. The measured data has a good consistency with the reference golden beam data. The measured beam quality index for all the beams are in good agreement with the published data. The percentage depth dose at 10 cm depth of all the available photon beams was within the tolerance of the Varian acceptance specification. The dosimetric data shows consistent and comparable results with the published data of other True Beam linear accelerators. The dosimetric data provide us an appreciated perception and consistent among the published data and may be used for future references.

SU‐F‐T‐491: Photon Beam Matching Analysis at Multiple Sites Up to Twelve Years Post Installation

Purpose:To determine if the photon beams associated with several models of accelerators are matched with ‘Golden Beam’ data (VGBD) to assess treatment planning modeling and delivery.Methods:Six accelerators’ photon beams were evaluated to determine if they matched the manufacturer's (Varian Medical Systems, Inc.) VGBD. Additional direct comparisons of the 6X and 18X beams using the manufacturer's specification of Basic and Fine beam matching were also performed. The Cseries accelerator models were 21 EX (3), IX (2), and a IX Trilogy, ranging from three to twelve years post installation. Computerized beam scanning was performed (IBA Blue Phantom 2) with 2 CC13 ion chambers in water at 100 cm SSD. Dmax (10 cm2 field size), percentage depth dose (6 cm2, 10 cm2, 20 cm2, and 30 cm2 field sizes) and beam uniformity (10 cm2, 30 cm2 and 40 cm2 field sizes) were evaluated.Results:When comparing the beams with VGBD using the ‘Basic’ matching criteria, all beams were within the specifications (1.5mm at dmax, 1% PDD, and 2% Profiles). When considering the “Fine” matching criteria (1.5mm at dmax, 0.5% PDD, and 2% Profiles), only three of six 6MV beams and two of six high energy (five 18MV &amp; one 15MV) beams passed. Direct comparisons between accelerators using the Clinac IX (installed 2012) as the reference beam datasets resulted in all 6 MV and 18MV beams meeting both the “Basic” and “Fine” criterion with the exception of two accelerators.Conclusion:Linear accelerators installed up to nine years apart are capable of meeting the manufacturers beam matching criteria for “Basic” matching. Without any adjustments most beams, when evaluated, may meet the “Fine” match criteria. The use of a single dataset (VGBD or designated accelerator reference data) for treatment planning commissioning is acceptable and can provide quality treatment delivery.

SU‐F‐P‐39: End‐To‐End Validation of a 6 MV High Dose Rate Photon Beam, Configured for Eclipse AAA Algorithm Using Golden Beam Data, for SBRT Treatments Using RapidArc

Purpose:To use end‐to‐end testing to validate a 6 MV high dose rate photon beam, configured for Eclipse AAA algorithm using Golden Beam Data (GBD), for SBRT treatments using RapidArc.Methods:Beam data was configured for Varian Eclipse AAA algorithm using the GBD provided by the vendor. Transverse and diagonals dose profiles, PDDs and output factors down to a field size of 2×2 cm2 were measured on a Varian Trilogy Linac and compared with GBD library using 2% 2mm 1D gamma analysis. The MLC transmission factor and dosimetric leaf gap were determined to characterize the MLC in Eclipse. Mechanical and dosimetric tests were performed combining different gantry rotation speeds, dose rates and leaf speeds to evaluate the delivery system performance according to VMAT accuracy requirements. An end‐to‐end test was implemented planning several SBRT RapidArc treatments on a CIRS 002LFC IMRT Thorax Phantom. The CT scanner calibration curve was acquired and loaded in Eclipse. PTW 31013 ionization chamber was used with Keithley 35617EBS electrometer for absolute point dose measurements in water and lung equivalent inserts. TPS calculated planar dose distributions were compared to those measured using EPID and MapCheck, as an independent verification method. Results were evaluated with gamma criteria of 2% dose difference and 2mm DTA for 95% of points.Results:GBD set vs. measured data passed 2% 2mm 1D gamma analysis even for small fields. Machine performance tests show results are independent of machine delivery configuration, as expected. Absolute point dosimetry comparison resulted within 4% for the worst case scenario in lung. Over 97% of the points evaluated in dose distributions passed gamma index analysis.Conclusion:Eclipse AAA algorithm configuration of the 6 MV high dose rate photon beam using GBD proved efficient. End‐to‐end test dose calculation results indicate it can be used clinically for SBRT using RapidArc.

SU‐F‐T‐494: A Multi‐Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification Using Golden Beam Data

Purpose:In general, beam data of individual linac is measured for independent dose verification software program and the verification is performed as a secondary check. In this study, independent dose verification using golden beam data was compared to that using individual linac's beam data.Methods:Six institutions were participated and three different beam data were prepared. The one was individual measured data (Original Beam Data, OBD) .The others were generated by all measurements from same linac model (Model‐GBD) and all linac models (All‐GBD). The three different beam data were registered to the independent verification software program for each institute. Subsequently, patient's plans in eight sites (brain, head and neck, lung, esophagus, breast, abdomen, pelvis and bone) were analyzed using the verification program to compare doses calculated using the three different beam data.Results:1116 plans were collected from six institutes. Compared to using the OBD, the results shows the variation using the Model‐GBD based calculation and the All‐GBD was 0.0 ± 0.3% and 0.0 ± 0.6%, respectively. The maximum variations were 1.2% and 2.3%, respectively. The plans with the variation over 1% shows the reference points were located away from the central axis with/without physical wedge.Conclusion:The confidence limit (2SD) using the Model‐GBD and the All‐GBD was within 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Thus, the use of golden beam data may be feasible for independent verification. In addition to it, the verification using golden beam data provide quality assurance of planning from the view of audit.This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development(AMED)

Assessment of a three-dimensional (3D) water scanning system for beam commissioning and measurements on a helical tomotherapy unit.

Beam scanning data collected on the tomotherapy linear accelerator using the TomoScanner water scanning system is primarily used to verify the golden beam profiles included in all Helical TomoTherapy treatment planning systems (TOMO TPSs). The user is not allowed to modify the beam profiles/parameters for beam modeling within the TOMO TPSs. The authors report the first feasibility study using the Blue Phantom Helix (BPH) as an alternative to the TomoScanner (TS) system. This work establishes a benchmark dataset using BPH for target commissioning and quality assurance (QA), and quantifies systematic uncertainties between TS and BPH. Reproducibility of scanning with BPH was tested by three experienced physicists taking five sets of measurements over a six‐month period. BPH provides several enhancements over TS, including a 3D scanning arm, which is able to acquire necessary beam‐data with one tank setup, a universal chamber mount, and the OmniPro software, which allows online data collection and analysis. Discrepancies between BPH and TS were estimated by acquiring datasets with each tank. In addition, data measured with BPH and TS was compared to the golden TOMO TPS beam data. The total systematic uncertainty, defined as the combination of scanning system and beam modeling uncertainties, was determined through numerical analysis and tabulated. OmniPro was used for all analysis to eliminate uncertainty due to different data processing algorithms. The setup reproducibility of BPH remained within 0.5 mm/0.5%. Comparing BPH, TS, and Golden TPS for PDDs beyond maximum depth, the total systematic uncertainties were within 1.4 mm/2.1%. Between BPH and TPS golden data, maximum differences in the field width and penumbra of in‐plane profiles were within 0.8 and 1.1 mm, respectively. Furthermore, in cross‐plane profiles, the field width differences increased at depth greater than 10 cm up to 2.5 mm, and maximum penumbra uncertainties were 5.6 mm and 4.6 mm from TS scanning system and TPS modeling, respectively. Use of BPH reduced measurement time by 1–2 hrs per session. The BPH has been assessed as an efficient, reproducible, and accurate scanning system capable of providing a reliable benchmark beam data. With this data, a physicist can utilize the BPH in a clinical setting with an understanding of the scan discrepancy that may be encountered while validating the TPS or during routine machine QA. Without the flexibility of modifying the TPS and without a golden beam dataset from the vendor or a TPS model generated from data collected with the BPH, this represents the best solution for current clinical use of the BPH.PACS number: 87.56.Fc

Development of a golden beam data set for the commissioning of a proton double-scattering system in a pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm.

The purpose of this investigation is to determine if a single set of beam data, described by a minimal set of equations and fitting variables, can be used to commission different installations of a proton double-scattering system in a commercial pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm. The beam model parameters required to commission the pencil-beam dose calculation algorithm (virtual and effective SAD, effective source size, and pristine-peak energy spread) are determined for a commercial double-scattering system. These parameters are measured in a first room and parameterized as function of proton energy and nozzle settings by fitting four analytical equations to the measured data. The combination of these equations and fitting values constitutes the golden beam data (GBD). To determine the variation in dose delivery between installations, the same dosimetric properties are measured in two additional rooms at the same facility, as well as in a single room at another facility. The difference between the room-specific measurements and the GBD is evaluated against tolerances that guarantee the 3D dose distribution in each of the rooms matches the GBD-based dose distribution within clinically reasonable limits. The pencil-beam treatment-planning algorithm is commissioned with the GBD. The three-dimensional dose distribution in water is evaluated in the four treatment rooms and compared to the treatment-planning calculated dose distribution. The virtual and effective SAD measurements fall between 226 and 257 cm. The effective source size varies between 2.4 and 6.2 cm for the large-field options, and 1.0 and 2.0 cm for the small-field options. The pristine-peak energy spread decreases from 1.05% at the lowest range to 0.6% at the highest. The virtual SAD as well as the effective source size can be accurately described by a linear relationship as function of the inverse of the residual energy. An additional linear correction term as function of RM-step thickness is required for accurate parameterization of the effective SAD. The GBD energy spread is given by a linear function of the exponential of the beam energy. Except for a few outliers, the measured parameters match the GBD within the specified tolerances in all of the four rooms investigated. For a SOBP field with a range of 15 g/cm2 and an air gap of 25 cm, the maximum difference in the 80%-20% lateral penumbra between the GBD-commissioned treatment-planning system and measurements in any of the four rooms is 0.5 mm. The beam model parameters of the double-scattering system can be parameterized with a limited set of equations and parameters. This GBD closely matches the measured dosimetric properties in four different rooms.

Poster - Thur Eve - 47: Monte Carlo Simulation of Scp, Sc and Sp

The in-water output ratio (Scp), in-air output ratio (Sc), and phantom scattering factor (Sp) are important parameters for radiotherapy dose calculation. Experimentally, Scp is obtained by measuring the dose rate ratio in water phantom, and Sc the water Kerma rate ratio in air. There is no method that allows direct measurement of Sp. Monte Carlo (MC) method has been used to simulate Scp and Sc in literatures, similar to experimental setup, but no MC direct simulation of Sp available yet to the best of our knowledge. We propose in this report a method of performing direct MC simulation of Sp. Starting from the definition, we derived that Sp of a clinical photon beam can be approximated by the ratio of the dose rates contributed from the primary beam for a given field size to the reference field size. Since only the primary beam is used, any Linac head scattering should be excluded from the simulation, which can be realized by using the incident electron as a scoring parameter for MU. We performed MC simulations for Scp, Sc and Sp. Scp matches well with golden beam data. Sp obtained by the proposed method agrees well with what is obtained using themore » traditional method, Sp=Scp/Sc. Since the smaller the field size, the more the primary beam dominates, our Sp simulation method is accurate for small field. By analyzing the calculated data, we found that this method can be used with no problem for large fields. The difference it introduced is clinically insignificant.« less

Poster — Thur Eve — 43: Monte Carlo Modeling of Flattening Filter Free Beams and Studies of Relative Output Factors

Flattening filter free (FFF) beams have been adopted by many clinics and used for patient treatment. However, compared to the traditional flattened beams, we have limited knowledge of FFF beams. In this study, we successfully modeled the 6 MV FFF beam for Varian TrueBeam accelerator with the Monte Carlo (MC) method. Both the percentage depth dose and profiles match well to the Golden Beam Data (GBD) from Varian. MC simulations were then performed to predict the relative output factors. The in‐water output ratio, Scp, was simulated in water phantom and data obtained agrees well with GBD. The in‐air output ratio, Sc, was obtained by analyzing the phase space placed at isocenter, in air, and computing the ratio of water Kerma rates for different field sizes. The phantom scattering factor, Sp, can then be obtained from the traditional way of taking the ratio of Scp and Sc. We also simulated Sp using a recently proposed method based on only the primary beam dose delivery in water phantom. Because there is no concern of lateral electronic disequilibrium, this method is more suitable for small fields. The results from both methods agree well with each other. The flattened 6 MV beam was simulated and compared to 6 MV FFF. The comparison confirms that 6 MV FFF has less scattering from the Linac head and less phantom scattering contribution to the central axis dose, which will be helpful for improving accuracy in beam modeling and dose calculation in treatment planning systems.