The clinical impact of detector choice for beam scanning.

Recently, the developers of Eclipse have recommended the use of ionization chambers for all profile scanning, including for the modeling of VMAT and stereotactic applications. The purpose of this study is to show the clinical impact caused by the choice of detector with respect to its ability to accurately measure dose in the penumbra and tail regions of a scanned profile. Using scan data acquired with several detectors, including an IBA CC13, a PTW 60012, and a Sun Nuclear EDGE Detector, three complete beam models are created, one for each respective detector. Next, using each beam model, dose volumes are retrospectively recalculated from actual anonymous patient plans. These plans include three full-arc VMAT prostate plans, three left chest wall plans delivered using irregular compensators, two half-arc VMAT lung plans, three MLC-collimated static-field pairs, and two SBRT liver plans. Finally, plans are reweighted to deliver the same number of monitor units, and mean dose-to-target volumes and organs at risk are calculated and compared. Penumbra width did not play a role. Dose in the tail region of the profile made the largest difference. By overresponding in the tail region of the profile, the 60012 diode detector scan data affected the beam model in such a way that target doses were reduced by as much as 0.4% (in comparison to CC13 and EDGE data). This overresponse also resulted in an overestimation of dose to peripheral critical structure, whose dose consisted mainly of scatter. This study shows that, for modeling the 6 MV beam of Acuros XB in Eclipse Version 11, the choice to use a CC13 scanning ion chamber or an EDGE Detector was an unimportant choice, providing nearly identical models in the treatment planning system.

Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures: report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM.

For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief.discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.