Cargando…
Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations
PURPOSE: This study evaluates the clinical use of the RUBY modular QA phantom for linac QA to validate the integrity of IGRT workflows including the congruence of machine isocenter, imaging isocenter, and room lasers. The results have been benchmarked against those obtained with widely used systems....
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32797670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13006 |
_version_ | 1783601277770399744 |
---|---|
author | Poppinga, Daniela Kretschmer, Jana Brodbek, Leonie Meyners, Jutta Poppe, Bjoern Looe, Hui Khee |
author_facet | Poppinga, Daniela Kretschmer, Jana Brodbek, Leonie Meyners, Jutta Poppe, Bjoern Looe, Hui Khee |
author_sort | Poppinga, Daniela |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This study evaluates the clinical use of the RUBY modular QA phantom for linac QA to validate the integrity of IGRT workflows including the congruence of machine isocenter, imaging isocenter, and room lasers. The results have been benchmarked against those obtained with widely used systems. Additionally, the RUBY phantom has been implemented to perform system QA (End‐to‐End testing) from imaging to radiation for IGRT‐based VMAT and stereotactic radiations at an Elekta Synergy linac. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The daily check of IGRT workflow was performed using the RUBY phantom, the Penta‐Guide, and the STEEV phantom. Furthermore, Winston–Lutz tests was carried out with the RUBY phantom and a ball‐bearing phantom to determine the offsets and the diameters of the isospheres of gantry, collimator, and couch rotations, with respect to the room lasers and kV‐imaging isocenter. System QA was performed with the RUBY phantom and STEEV phantom for eight VMAT treatment plans. Additionally, the visibility of the embedded objects within these phantoms in the images and the results of CT and MR image fusions were evaluated. RESULTS: All systems used for daily QA of IGRT workflows show comparable results. Calculated shifts based on CBCT imaging agree within 1 mm to the expected values. The results of the Winston–Lutz test based on kV imaging (2D planar and CBCT) or room lasers are consistent regardless of the system tested. The point dose values in the RUBY phantom agree to the expected values calculated using algorithms in Masterplan and Monte Carlo engine in Monaco within 3% of the clinical acceptance criteria. CONCLUSION: All the systems evaluated in this study yielded comparable results in terms of linac QA and system QA procedures. A system QA protocol has been derived using the RUBY phantom to check the IGRT‐based VMAT and stereotactic radiations workflow at an Elekta Synergy linac. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7592965 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75929652020-11-02 Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations Poppinga, Daniela Kretschmer, Jana Brodbek, Leonie Meyners, Jutta Poppe, Bjoern Looe, Hui Khee J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: This study evaluates the clinical use of the RUBY modular QA phantom for linac QA to validate the integrity of IGRT workflows including the congruence of machine isocenter, imaging isocenter, and room lasers. The results have been benchmarked against those obtained with widely used systems. Additionally, the RUBY phantom has been implemented to perform system QA (End‐to‐End testing) from imaging to radiation for IGRT‐based VMAT and stereotactic radiations at an Elekta Synergy linac. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The daily check of IGRT workflow was performed using the RUBY phantom, the Penta‐Guide, and the STEEV phantom. Furthermore, Winston–Lutz tests was carried out with the RUBY phantom and a ball‐bearing phantom to determine the offsets and the diameters of the isospheres of gantry, collimator, and couch rotations, with respect to the room lasers and kV‐imaging isocenter. System QA was performed with the RUBY phantom and STEEV phantom for eight VMAT treatment plans. Additionally, the visibility of the embedded objects within these phantoms in the images and the results of CT and MR image fusions were evaluated. RESULTS: All systems used for daily QA of IGRT workflows show comparable results. Calculated shifts based on CBCT imaging agree within 1 mm to the expected values. The results of the Winston–Lutz test based on kV imaging (2D planar and CBCT) or room lasers are consistent regardless of the system tested. The point dose values in the RUBY phantom agree to the expected values calculated using algorithms in Masterplan and Monte Carlo engine in Monaco within 3% of the clinical acceptance criteria. CONCLUSION: All the systems evaluated in this study yielded comparable results in terms of linac QA and system QA procedures. A system QA protocol has been derived using the RUBY phantom to check the IGRT‐based VMAT and stereotactic radiations workflow at an Elekta Synergy linac. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7592965/ /pubmed/32797670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13006 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Radiation Oncology Physics Poppinga, Daniela Kretschmer, Jana Brodbek, Leonie Meyners, Jutta Poppe, Bjoern Looe, Hui Khee Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations |
title | Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations |
title_full | Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations |
title_short | Evaluation of the RUBY modular QA phantom for planar and non‐coplanar VMAT and stereotactic radiations |
title_sort | evaluation of the ruby modular qa phantom for planar and non‐coplanar vmat and stereotactic radiations |
topic | Radiation Oncology Physics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7592965/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32797670 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT poppingadaniela evaluationoftherubymodularqaphantomforplanarandnoncoplanarvmatandstereotacticradiations AT kretschmerjana evaluationoftherubymodularqaphantomforplanarandnoncoplanarvmatandstereotacticradiations AT brodbekleonie evaluationoftherubymodularqaphantomforplanarandnoncoplanarvmatandstereotacticradiations AT meynersjutta evaluationoftherubymodularqaphantomforplanarandnoncoplanarvmatandstereotacticradiations AT poppebjoern evaluationoftherubymodularqaphantomforplanarandnoncoplanarvmatandstereotacticradiations AT looehuikhee evaluationoftherubymodularqaphantomforplanarandnoncoplanarvmatandstereotacticradiations |