Highlights
- •Verification of reference beam profiles (RBPs) for preconfigured Halcyon.
- •Comparison of RBPs and accurate measured beam profiles (MBPs) with novel rigid board.
- •Measurements of beam profiles with water tank on the board bridged Halcyon bore.
- •Supplied RBPs can be used as golden beam data due to good agreement with MBPs.
- •This work should be useful for new Halcyon users.
Abstract
Purpose
This study performed the accurate measurements of beam profiles with a new rigid board,
which was consistent with the supplied reference beam profiles (RBPs) for clinical
Halcyon model.
Methods
Percentage depth doses (PDDs), lateral and diagonal dose profiles were measured and
compared with RBPs. A water tank was set on the rigid board bridged Halcyon bore without
sagging and source-to-surface distance was 90.0 cm. Field sizes were from 2.0 to 28.0 cm
squares and depths of lateral and diagonal dose profiles were 1.3, 5.0, 10.0, and
20.0 cm. For the PDD, the depth of maximum dose (dmax), PDD value at depth of 10.0 cm (PDD10), and absolute dose difference (DD) between RBP and measured beam profiles (MBP)
were evaluated. For lateral and diagonal dose profiles, DDs for the whole and divided
areas (central, shoulder, and extended areas) defined by third derivative, and distance-to-agreement
(DTA) in the penumbra area were evaluated.
Results
For PDDs, the differences of dmax and PDD10 and DD beyond the dmax were within 1.0 mm, 0.3%, and 1.0%, respectively. For lateral and diagonal dose profiles,
the DDs reached approximately 5.0% in the whole area because of penumbra area, while
the DDs in the central, shoulder, and extended areas were within 1.0%, 2.0%, and 1.0%,
respectively. The DTAs in the penumbra area were within 0.8 mm.
Conclusions
The supplied RBPs can be used clinically owing to the good agreement with the accurate
MBPs with rigid board.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical PhysicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Application of TG-100 risk analysis methods to the acceptance testing and commissioning process of a Halcyon linear accelerator.Med Phys. 2019; 46: 1341-1354https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13378
- Validation and IMRT/VMAT delivery quality of a preconfigured fast-rotating O-ring linac system.Med Phys. 2019; 46: 328-339https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13282
- Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM.Med Phys. 2008; 35: 4186-4215https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2969070
- Challenges in credentialing institutions and participants in advanced technology multi-institutional clinical trials.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71: 71-75https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.08.083
- Examining credentialing criteria and poor performance indicators for IROC Houston’s anthropomorphic head and neck phantom.Med Phys. 2016; 43: 6491-6496https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4967344
- Agreement between institutional measurements and treatment planning system calculations for basic dosimetric parameters as measured by the imaging and radiation oncology Core-Houston.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95: 1527-1534https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.03.035
- An international review of patient safety measures in radiotherapy practice.Radiother Oncol. 2009; 92: 15-21https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.03.007
- AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.a.: commissioning and QA of treatment planning dose calculations – megavoltage photon and electron beams.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16: 14-34https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5768
- Experience in commissioning the halcyon linac.Med Phys. 2019; 46: 4304-4313
- Reduction of potential risk for skin toxicity in megavoltage radiotherapy using a novel rigid couch.In Vivo. 2018; 32: 531-536https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11271
- Plan complexity quantification of dual-layer multi-leaf collimator for volumetric modulated arc therapy with Halcyon linac.Phys Eng Sci Med. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00891-2
- TG-51 reference dosimetry for the HalcyonTM: a clinical experience.J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018; 19: 98-102https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12349
- Parameterization of the photon beam dosimetry for a commercial linear accelerator.Med Phys. 2016; 43: 748-760https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4924960
- Definition of parameters for quality assurance of flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams in radiation therapy: FFF beams quality assurance.Med Phys. 2012; 39: 6455-6464https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4754799
- Properties of unflattened photon beams shaped by a multi leaf collimator.Med Phys. 2006; 33: 1738-1746https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2241289
- A universal parameterized gradient-based method for photon beam field size determination.Med Phys. 2017; 44: 5627-5637
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 18, 2020
Accepted:
August 5,
2020
Received in revised form:
June 15,
2020
Received:
December 10,
2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
