Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T15:11:05.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality assurance of linear accelerator: a comprehensive system using electronic portal imaging device

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2018

P. Niyas ,
K. K. Abdullah ,
M. P. Noufal  and
R. Vysakh
P. Niyas*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Farook College, Kerala, India Department of Medical Physics, Baby Memorial Hospital, Kerala, India Department of Medical Physics, MVR Cancer Centre & Research Institute, Kerala, India
K. K. Abdullah
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Farook College, Kerala, India
M. P. Noufal
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Baby Memorial Hospital, Kerala, India
R. Vysakh
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, MVR Cancer Centre & Research Institute, Kerala, India
*
Author for correspondence: P. Niyas, Akayi Potta, Farook College, Calicut 673632, Kerala, India. Tel: +91 9847814131. E-mail: pniyas@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aim

The Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID), primarily used for patient setup during radiotherapy sessions is also used for dosimetric measurements. In the present study, the feasibility of EPID in both machine and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) are investigated. We have developed a comprehensive software tool for effective utilisation of EPID in our institutional QA protocol.

Materials and methods

Portal Vision aS1000, amorphous silicon portal detector attached to Clinac iX—Linear Accelerator (LINAC) was used to measure daily profile and output constancy, various Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) checks and patient plan verification. Different QA plans were generated with the help of Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) and MLC shaper software. The indigenously developed MATLAB programs were used for image analysis. Flatness, symmetry, output constancy, Field Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) and fluence comparison were studied from images obtained from TPS and EPID dosimetry.

Results

The 3 years institutional data of profile constancy and patient-specific QA measured using EPID were found within the acceptable limits. The daily output of photon beam correlated with the output obtained through solid phantom measurements. The Pearson correlation coefficients are 0.941 (p = 0.0001), 0.888 (p = 0.0188) and 0.917 (p = 0.0007) for the years of 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. The accuracy of MLC for shaping complex treatment fields was studied in terms of FWHM at different portions of various fields, showed good agreement between TPS-generated and EPID-measured MLC positions. The comparison of selected patient plans in EPID with an independent 2D array detector system showed statistically significant correlation between these two systems. Percentage difference between TPS computed and EPID measured fluence maps calculated for number of patients using MATLAB code also exhibited the validity of those plans for treatment.

Keywords

dosimetryEPIDfluence comparisonLINACQA
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 138 - 149
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Niyas P, Abdullah KK, Noufal MP, Vysakh R. (2019) Quality assurance of linear accelerator: a comprehensive system using electronic portal imaging device. Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice18: 138–149. doi: 10.1017/S146039691800050X

References

1. Kutcher, GJ, Coia, L, Gillin, M et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 40. Med Phys 1994; 21 (4): 581–618.Google Scholar
2. Klein, EE, Hanley, J, Bayouth, J et al. Task Group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009; 36 (9): 4197–4212.Google Scholar
3. Fraass, B, Doppke, K, Hunt, M et al. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med Phys 1998; 25: 1773–1829.Google Scholar
4. McKenzie, EM, Balter, PA, Stingo, FC, Jones, J, Followill, DS, Kry, SF. Toward optimizing patient-specific IMRT QA techniques in the accurate detection of dosimetrically acceptable and unacceptable patient plans. Med Phys. 2014; 41 (12): 121702.Google Scholar
5. Pasma, KL, Dirkx, ML. P, Kroonwijk, M, Visser, AG, Heijmen, BJM. Dosimetric verification of intensity modulated beams produced with dynamic multileaf collimation using an electronic portal imaging device. Med Phys 1999; 26: 2373–2378.Google Scholar
6. Talamonti, C, Casati, M, Bucciolini, M. Pretreatment verification of IMRT absolute dose distributions using a commercial a Si-EPID. Med Phys 2006; 33: 4367–4378.Google Scholar
7. Lee, C, Menk, F, Cadman, P, Greer, PB. A simple approach to using an amorphous silicon EPID to verify IMRT planar dose maps. Med Phys 2009; 36: 984–992.Google Scholar
8. Esch, AV, Huyskens, DP, Hirschi, L, Scheib, S, Baltes, C. Optimized Varian a Si portal dosimetry: development of datasets for collective use. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 82–99.Google Scholar
9. Vieira, SC, Bolt, RA, Dirkx, MLP, Visser, AG, Heijmen, BJM. Fast, daily linac verification for segmented IMRT using electronic portal imaging. Radiother Oncol 2006; 80 (1): 86–92.Google Scholar
10. Yang, Y, Xing, L. Quantitative measurement of MLC leaf displacements using an electronic portal image device. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 1521–1533.Google Scholar
11. Parent, L, Seco, J, Evans, PM, Dance, DR, Fielding, A. Evaluation of two methods of predicting MLC leaf positions using EPID measurements. Med Phys 2006; 33: 3174–3182.Google Scholar
12. Chang, J, Obcemea, CH, Sillanpaa, J, Mechalakos, J, Burman, C. Use of EPID for leaf position accuracy QA of dynamic multi-leaf collimator (DMLC) treatment. Med Phys 2004; 31: 2091–2096.Google Scholar
13. Van Elmpt, W, McDermott, L, Nijsten, S, Wendling, M, Lambin, P, Mijnheer, B. A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry. Radiother Oncol 2008; 88: 289–309.Google Scholar
14. Hossain, M, Rhoades, J. On beam quality and flatness of radiotherapy megavoltage photon beams. Austral Phys Eng Sci Med 2016; 39 (1): 135–145.Google Scholar
15. Nath, R, Biggs, PJ, Bova, FJ, Ling, CC, Purdy, JA, van de Geijn, J et al. AAPM code of practice for radiotherapy accelerators: report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Task Group No. 45. Med Phys 1994; 21: 1093–1121.Google Scholar
16. Rangel, A, Dunscombe, P. Tolerances on MLC leaf position accuracy for IMRT delivery with a dynamic MLC. Med Phys 2009; 36: 3304–3309.Google Scholar
17. Mamalui-Hunter, M, Li, H, Low, DA. MLC quality assurance using EPID: a fitting technique with sub pixel precision. Med Phys 2008; 35: 2347–2355.Google Scholar
18. Anup Kumar, B, Suresh Chander, S, Bhupendra, R, Arvind, S. Study of 2D ion chamber array for angular response and QA of dynamic MLC and pretreatment IMRT plans. Pract Oncol Radiother 2009; 14 (3): 89–94.Google Scholar
19. Niyas, P, Abdullah, KK, Noufal, MP et al. Effect of fluence smoothing on the quality of intensity-modulated radiation treatment plans. Radiol Phys Technol 2016; 9: 202.Google Scholar
20. Nelms, BE, Simon, JA. A survey on IMRT QA analysis. J App Clin Med Phys 2007; 8 (3): 76–90.Google Scholar
21. Bucciolini, M, Bounamici, FB, Casati, M. Verification of IMRT fields by film dosimetry. Med Phys 2004; 31 (1): 161–168.Google Scholar
22. Ju, SG, Ahn, YC, Huh, SJ, Yeo, IJ. Film dosimetry for intensity modulated radiotherapy: dosimetric evaluation. Med Phys 2002; 29 (3): 315–325.Google Scholar
23. Tyler, M, Vial, P, Metcalfe, P, Downes, S. Clinical validation of an in-house EPID dosimetry system for IMRT QA at the Prince of Wales Hospital. J Phys Conf Ser 2013; 444 (012043): 1–4.Google Scholar
24. Heilemann, G, Poppe, B, Laub, W. On the sensitivity of common gamma-index evaluation methods to MLC misalignments in Rapidarc quality assurance. Med Phys 2013; 40 (3): 031702.Google Scholar
25. Saminathan, S, Manickan, R, Chandraraj, V, Supe, SS. Dosimetric study of 2D ion chamber array matrix for the modern radiotherapy treatment verification. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11: 116–127.Google Scholar
26. Bailey, DW, Kumaraswamy, L, Bakhtiari, M, Malhotra, HK, Podgorsak, MB. EPID dosimetry for pretreatment quality assurance with two commercial systems. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2012; 13 (4): 82–99.Google Scholar
27. McDermott, LN, Wendling, M, Sonke, JJ, van Herk, M, Mijnheer, BJ. Replacing pretreatment verification with in-vivo EPID dosimetry for prostate IMRT. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 67 (5): 1568–1577.Google Scholar
28. Mans, A, Wendling, M, McDermott, LN et al. Catching errors with in vivo EPID dosimetry. Med Phys 2010; 37 (6): 2638–2644.Google Scholar