This study is to investigate three common potential setup uncertainties during Linac commissioning and annual QA and to evaluate how these uncertainties propagate into the quality of beam profiles and patient dosimetr...This study is to investigate three common potential setup uncertainties during Linac commissioning and annual QA and to evaluate how these uncertainties propagate into the quality of beam profiles and patient dosimetry using gamma analysis. Three uncertainty scenarios were purposely introduced for gantry position tilted from 0˚- 3˚(scenario 1), isocenter position misaligned from 0 - 6 mm (scenario 2) and SAD changed from 99.5 - 103 cm (scenario 3). A 60 × 60 × 60 cm<sup>3</sup> water phantom cube was created to replicate a 3D water tank in VarianEclipse (V.11) treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). For each scenario, beam data profiles (crossline and diagonal) and PDD curves were calculated at different field sizes and depths for three energies: 6 MV, 6 MV-FFF and 10 MV-FFF. Gamma analysis method was used to compare a total of 263 profiles to baseline using a 1%/1mm parameter with 90% gamma passing rate criteria. For scenario 1, a ≥90% gamma passing rate and ≤1% dose difference were seen on both crossline and diagonal profiles, and PDD curves for gantry tilted up to 2˚. For 3˚degree tilt, the gamma passing rate decreased to ≤90% at depth of ≥20 cm for 6MV/6MV-FFF and depth of ≥12 cm for 10MV-FFF. For scenario 2, a ≤90% gamma passing rate and ≥1% dose difference were seen at depths from d<sub>max</sub> to 20 cm for all energies. For depths ≥20 cm, mostly ≥90% gamma passing rate and ≤1% dose difference were seen. For scenario 3, a ≥90% gamma passing rate and ≤1% dose difference were seen on ≤4 mm isocenter misalignments for all energies. In summary, gamma analysis of the beam profiles is a very sensitive test for SAD deviation scenarios and can reveal issues of sub millimeter setup uncertainty. However, it is not as sensitive for isocenter misalignment scenarios. The test is also more sensitive for FFF beams than flattening filter beams.展开更多
文摘This study is to investigate three common potential setup uncertainties during Linac commissioning and annual QA and to evaluate how these uncertainties propagate into the quality of beam profiles and patient dosimetry using gamma analysis. Three uncertainty scenarios were purposely introduced for gantry position tilted from 0˚- 3˚(scenario 1), isocenter position misaligned from 0 - 6 mm (scenario 2) and SAD changed from 99.5 - 103 cm (scenario 3). A 60 × 60 × 60 cm<sup>3</sup> water phantom cube was created to replicate a 3D water tank in VarianEclipse (V.11) treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA). For each scenario, beam data profiles (crossline and diagonal) and PDD curves were calculated at different field sizes and depths for three energies: 6 MV, 6 MV-FFF and 10 MV-FFF. Gamma analysis method was used to compare a total of 263 profiles to baseline using a 1%/1mm parameter with 90% gamma passing rate criteria. For scenario 1, a ≥90% gamma passing rate and ≤1% dose difference were seen on both crossline and diagonal profiles, and PDD curves for gantry tilted up to 2˚. For 3˚degree tilt, the gamma passing rate decreased to ≤90% at depth of ≥20 cm for 6MV/6MV-FFF and depth of ≥12 cm for 10MV-FFF. For scenario 2, a ≤90% gamma passing rate and ≥1% dose difference were seen at depths from d<sub>max</sub> to 20 cm for all energies. For depths ≥20 cm, mostly ≥90% gamma passing rate and ≤1% dose difference were seen. For scenario 3, a ≥90% gamma passing rate and ≤1% dose difference were seen on ≤4 mm isocenter misalignments for all energies. In summary, gamma analysis of the beam profiles is a very sensitive test for SAD deviation scenarios and can reveal issues of sub millimeter setup uncertainty. However, it is not as sensitive for isocenter misalignment scenarios. The test is also more sensitive for FFF beams than flattening filter beams.
