Vol 26, No 4 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-03-26

open access

Page views 551
Article views/downloads 354
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Using beam profile inflection point in process of treatment planning system verification

Jacek Wendykier1, Aleksandra Grządziel1, Barbara Bekman1, Marcin Bieniasiewicz2, Adam Bekman3, Piotr Wendykier4, Bożena Woźniak3, Marta Reudelsdorf1, Krzysztof Ślosarek1
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(4):553-562.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The comparison between profiles during the commissioning of the treatment planning system is an essential procedure. It is impossible to designate a field size for off-axis, wedged, and FFF beams directly by using the definition of the on-axis symmetric field size. This work proposes the use of different characteristic points as indicators of the field size for commissioning and QA purposes.

This work aimed to search for the beam profile's characteristic points and use them for the TPS commissioning purposes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The proposal is to use profile inflection points as the beam profile characteristic points. The usage of dedicated software allowed for comparing distances between inflection points and between points of 50% intensity. For the off-axis, wedged, and FFF fields, comparisons were made to the nominal field sizes.

RESULTS: Distances between inflection points proved to be different by less than 1 mm from nominal field sizes for all kinds of investigated beams.

CONCLUSIONS: Inflection points are convenient for comparing the off-axis, wedged, and FFF field sizes because of their independence from profile normalization. With finite accuracy, the inflection points could be used for the above kind of beam sizes designation.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Ling C, Zhang P, Archambault Y, et al. Commissioning and Quality Assurance of RapidArc Radiotherapy Delivery System. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72(2): 575–581.
  2. Dyk J, Barnett RB, Cygler JE, et al. Commissioning and quality assurance of treatment planning computers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1993; 26(2): 261–273.
  3. Bedford JL, Childs PJ, Nordmark Ha, et al. Commissioning and quality assurance of the Pinnacle radiotherapy treatment planning system for external beam photons. Br J Radiol. 2003; 76(903): 163–176.
  4. Deng J, Ma CM, Hai J, et al. Commissioning 6 MV photon beams of a stereotactic radiosurgery system for Monte Carlo treatment planning. Med Phys. 2003; 30(12): 3124–3134.
  5. Xing L, Curran B, Hill R, et al. Dosimetric verification of a commercial inverse treatment planning system. Phys Med Biol. 1999; 44(2): 463–478.
  6. Özgüven Y, Yaray K, Alkaya F, et al. An institutional experience of quality assurance of a treatment planning system on photon beam. Rep Prac Oncol Radiother. 2014; 19(3): 195–205.
  7. Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer. Technical Reports Series no 430, IAEA, Vienna 2004.
  8. Commissioning of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems: Testing for Typical External Beam Treatment Techniques. IAEA TECDOC — 1583, Vienna 2008.
  9. Rutonjski L, Petrović B, Baucal M, et al. Dosimetric verification of radiotherapy treatment planning systems in Serbia: national audit. Radiat Oncol. 2012; 7: 155.
  10. Lopes M, AJK Ca, Madureira LG, et al. Treatment planning systems dosimetry auditing project in Portugal. Phys Med . 2014; 30(1): 96–103.
  11. Gershkevitsh E, Pesznyak C, Petrovic B, et al. Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit. Acta Oncol. 2014; 53(5): 628–636.
  12. Wendykier J, Bieniasiewicz M, Grządziel A, et al. Determination of boundaries between ranges of high and low gradient of beam profile. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016; 21(3): 168–173.
  13. Eclipse Photon and Electron Algorithms Reference Guide, P1008611-002-B, Varian Medical Systems 2014.
  14. Mitchell R, Madey R. Least-square fitting of a Gaussian function and evaluation of the errors of the coefficients radiation laboratory, University of California, Berkeley 1954.
  15. Mańczak K. Experiment Design Techniques (Polish version). Wydawnicta Naukowo-Techniczne, Warszawa 1979: Warsaw.
  16. Poenisch F, Titt U, Vassiliev O, et al. SU-FF-T-371: Properties of Unflattened Photon Beams Shaped by a Multi Leaf Collimator. Med Phys. 2006; 33(6): 1738–1746.
  17. Hrbacek J, Lang S, Kloeck S. Commissioning of photon beams of a flattering filter-free linear accelerator and the accuracy of beam modeling using the anisotropic analytical algorithm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 80(4): 1228–1237.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy