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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Poppinga, Daniela, Kretschmer, Jana, Brodbek, Leonie, Meyners, Jutta, Poppe, Bjoern, Looe, Hui Khee
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