Daily QA of linear accelerators using only EPID and OBI.

PURPOSE As treatment delivery becomes more complex, there is a pressing need for robust quality assurance (QA) tools to improve efficiency and comprehensiveness while simultaneously maintaining high accuracy and sensitivity. This work aims to present the hardware and software tools developed for comprehensive QA of linear accelerator (LINAC) using only electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) and kV flat panel detectors. METHODS A daily QA phantom, which includes two orthogonally positioned phantoms for QA of MV-beams and kV onboard imaging (OBI) is suspended from the gantry accessory holder to test both geometric and dosimetric components of a LINAC and an OBI. The MV component consists of a 0.5 cm water-equivalent plastic sheet incorporating 11 circular steel plugs for transmission measurements through multiple thicknesses and one resolution plug for MV-image quality testing. The kV-phantom consists of a Leeds phantom (TOR-18 FG phantom supplied by Varian) for testing low and high contrast resolutions. In the developed process, the existing LINAC tools were used to automate daily acquisition of MV and kV images and software tools were developed for simultaneous analysis of these images. A method was developed to derive and evaluate traditional QA parameters from these images [output, flatness, symmetry, uniformity, TPR20/10, and positional accuracy of the jaws and multileaf collimators (MLCs)]. The EPID-based daily QA tools were validated by performing measurements on a detuned 6 MV beam to test its effectiveness in detecting errors in output, symmetry, energy, and MLC positions. The developed QA process was clinically commissioned, implemented, and evaluated on a Varian TrueBeam LINAC (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA) over a period of three months. RESULTS Machine output constancy measured with an EPID (as compared against a calibrated ion-chamber) is shown to be within ±0.5%. Beam symmetry and flatness deviations measured using an EPID and a 2D ion-chamber array agree within ±0.5% and ±1.2% for crossline and inline profiles, respectively. MLC position errors of 0.5 mm can be detected using a picket fence test. The field size and phantom positioning accuracy can be determined within 0.5 mm. The entire daily QA process takes ∼15 min to perform tests for 5 photon beams, MLC tests, and imaging checks. CONCLUSIONS The exclusive use of EPID-based QA tools, including a QA phantom and simultaneous analysis software tools, has been demonstrated as a viable, efficient, and comprehensive process for daily evaluation of LINAC performance.

[1]  P. Greer,et al.  A method for removing arm backscatter from EPID images. , 2013, Medical physics.

[2]  R I MacKay,et al.  Use of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for multileaf collimator quality control and calibration , 2005, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  P. B. Greer,et al.  Long-term two-dimensional pixel stability of EPIDs used for regular linear accelerator quality assurance , 2011, Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine.

[4]  J Rottmann,et al.  SU-E-J-112: The Impact of Cine EPID Image Acquisition Frame Rate On Markerless Soft-Tissue Tracking. , 2014, Medical physics.

[5]  S Mutic,et al.  Characterization of a commercial multileaf collimator used for intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2001, Medical physics.

[6]  J Eduardo Villarreal-Barajas,et al.  On the use of the MLC dosimetric leaf gap as a quality control tool for accurate dynamic IMRT delivery. , 2011, Medical physics.

[7]  J. Palta,et al.  Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. , 1994, Medical physics.

[8]  Jim O'Doherty,et al.  Automated x-ray/light field congruence using the LINAC EPID panel. , 2013, Medical physics.

[9]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. , 2009, Medical physics.

[10]  Sridhar Yaddanapudi,et al.  SU-E-T-775: Use of Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) for Quality Assurance (QA) of Electron Beams On Varian Truebeam System , 2015 .

[11]  G J Budgell,et al.  Daily monitoring of linear accelerator beam parameters using an amorphous silicon EPID , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  B. Norrlinger,et al.  Quality assurance of electron beams using a Varian electronic portal imaging device , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Rabih Hammoud,et al.  A positioning QA procedure for 2D/2D (kV/MV) and 3D/3D (CT/CBCT) image matching for radiotherapy patient setup , 2009, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[14]  Ross Berbeco,et al.  The impact of cine EPID image acquisition frame rate on markerless soft-tissue tracking. , 2014, Medical physics.

[15]  Pejman Rowshanfarzad,et al.  EPID-based verification of the MLC performance for dynamic IMRT and VMAT. , 2012, Medical physics.

[16]  T LoSasso,et al.  Testing of dynamic multileaf collimation. , 1996, Medical physics.

[17]  D. Low,et al.  A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions. , 1998, Medical physics.

[18]  P. Munro,et al.  Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58. , 2001, Medical physics.

[19]  N. Otsu.  A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[20]  Pejman Rowshanfarzad,et al.  Measurement and modeling of the effect of support arm backscatter on dosimetry with a varian EPID. , 2010, Medical physics.

[21]  Peter B Greer,et al.  Dosimetric properties of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for verification of dynamic intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2003, Medical physics.