SU‐FF‐J‐44: Application of a Routine Geometric QA Tool for Integrated MV and KV Imaging Systems On Trilogy, Synergy, and Vero

W. Mao, M. Speiser, P. Medin, L. Papiez, T. Solberg, L. Xing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: A geometric QA tool has been adapted as a routine QA tool for three different types of linear accelerators with integrated kV imaging systems. It quantitatively evaluates geometric accuracy of kV and MV cone beam imaging systems including their coincidence. Method and Materials: Three linacs are a Varian Trilogy (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA), an Elekta Synergy (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), and a Brainlab Vero (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). Both the Trilogy and Synergy linacs are equipped with a retractable kV x‐ray tube and a flat panel detector. The Vero is based on the MHI‐TM2000 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). It utilizes a rotating, rigid ring structure integrating a MV x‐ray head mounted on orthogonal gimbals, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), two kV x‐ray tubes, and fixed two flat panel detectors. Two QA phantoms were built to suit different field sizes. Projection images of a QA phantom were acquired by MV and kV imaging systems at a series of gantry angles. In‐house software was used to analyze projection images and calculate eight geometric parameters for each projection. They are three parameters describing the actual x‐ray source position, three parameters describing the position of the detector center, and two parameters describing the detector angular orientation. Results: Over 4,300 individual projections have been acquired and analyzed. The Trilogy was calibrated 4 times over a six month period while the Synergy and the Vero were calibrated twice and once, respectively. Quantitative geometric parameters of both MV and kV imaging systems were successfully evaluated. Isocenter consistency of the imaging systems was evaluated. Additionally, the gimbal‐based x‐ray source positioning of the Vero was examined. Conclusions: Geometric accuracies of both MV and integrated kV imaging systems were quantitatively evaluated by this QA tool.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2485
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume36
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

X-Rays
Metallurgy
Particle Accelerators
Tokyo
Sweden
Germany
Japan
Software
Head
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐FF‐J‐44 : Application of a Routine Geometric QA Tool for Integrated MV and KV Imaging Systems On Trilogy, Synergy, and Vero. / Mao, W.; Speiser, M.; Medin, P.; Papiez, L.; Solberg, T.; Xing, L.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2009, p. 2485.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4a4f4ff1b56543e492bfab36dd7a5baa,
title = "SU‐FF‐J‐44: Application of a Routine Geometric QA Tool for Integrated MV and KV Imaging Systems On Trilogy, Synergy, and Vero",
abstract = "Purpose: A geometric QA tool has been adapted as a routine QA tool for three different types of linear accelerators with integrated kV imaging systems. It quantitatively evaluates geometric accuracy of kV and MV cone beam imaging systems including their coincidence. Method and Materials: Three linacs are a Varian Trilogy (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA), an Elekta Synergy (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), and a Brainlab Vero (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). Both the Trilogy and Synergy linacs are equipped with a retractable kV x‐ray tube and a flat panel detector. The Vero is based on the MHI‐TM2000 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). It utilizes a rotating, rigid ring structure integrating a MV x‐ray head mounted on orthogonal gimbals, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), two kV x‐ray tubes, and fixed two flat panel detectors. Two QA phantoms were built to suit different field sizes. Projection images of a QA phantom were acquired by MV and kV imaging systems at a series of gantry angles. In‐house software was used to analyze projection images and calculate eight geometric parameters for each projection. They are three parameters describing the actual x‐ray source position, three parameters describing the position of the detector center, and two parameters describing the detector angular orientation. Results: Over 4,300 individual projections have been acquired and analyzed. The Trilogy was calibrated 4 times over a six month period while the Synergy and the Vero were calibrated twice and once, respectively. Quantitative geometric parameters of both MV and kV imaging systems were successfully evaluated. Isocenter consistency of the imaging systems was evaluated. Additionally, the gimbal‐based x‐ray source positioning of the Vero was examined. Conclusions: Geometric accuracies of both MV and integrated kV imaging systems were quantitatively evaluated by this QA tool.",
author = "W. Mao and M. Speiser and P. Medin and L. Papiez and T. Solberg and L. Xing",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1118/1.3181336",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "2485",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐FF‐J‐44

T2 - Application of a Routine Geometric QA Tool for Integrated MV and KV Imaging Systems On Trilogy, Synergy, and Vero

AU - Mao, W.

AU - Speiser, M.

AU - Medin, P.

AU - Papiez, L.

AU - Solberg, T.

AU - Xing, L.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Purpose: A geometric QA tool has been adapted as a routine QA tool for three different types of linear accelerators with integrated kV imaging systems. It quantitatively evaluates geometric accuracy of kV and MV cone beam imaging systems including their coincidence. Method and Materials: Three linacs are a Varian Trilogy (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA), an Elekta Synergy (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), and a Brainlab Vero (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). Both the Trilogy and Synergy linacs are equipped with a retractable kV x‐ray tube and a flat panel detector. The Vero is based on the MHI‐TM2000 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). It utilizes a rotating, rigid ring structure integrating a MV x‐ray head mounted on orthogonal gimbals, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), two kV x‐ray tubes, and fixed two flat panel detectors. Two QA phantoms were built to suit different field sizes. Projection images of a QA phantom were acquired by MV and kV imaging systems at a series of gantry angles. In‐house software was used to analyze projection images and calculate eight geometric parameters for each projection. They are three parameters describing the actual x‐ray source position, three parameters describing the position of the detector center, and two parameters describing the detector angular orientation. Results: Over 4,300 individual projections have been acquired and analyzed. The Trilogy was calibrated 4 times over a six month period while the Synergy and the Vero were calibrated twice and once, respectively. Quantitative geometric parameters of both MV and kV imaging systems were successfully evaluated. Isocenter consistency of the imaging systems was evaluated. Additionally, the gimbal‐based x‐ray source positioning of the Vero was examined. Conclusions: Geometric accuracies of both MV and integrated kV imaging systems were quantitatively evaluated by this QA tool.

AB - Purpose: A geometric QA tool has been adapted as a routine QA tool for three different types of linear accelerators with integrated kV imaging systems. It quantitatively evaluates geometric accuracy of kV and MV cone beam imaging systems including their coincidence. Method and Materials: Three linacs are a Varian Trilogy (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California, USA), an Elekta Synergy (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden), and a Brainlab Vero (Brainlab AG, Feldkirchen, Germany). Both the Trilogy and Synergy linacs are equipped with a retractable kV x‐ray tube and a flat panel detector. The Vero is based on the MHI‐TM2000 (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). It utilizes a rotating, rigid ring structure integrating a MV x‐ray head mounted on orthogonal gimbals, an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), two kV x‐ray tubes, and fixed two flat panel detectors. Two QA phantoms were built to suit different field sizes. Projection images of a QA phantom were acquired by MV and kV imaging systems at a series of gantry angles. In‐house software was used to analyze projection images and calculate eight geometric parameters for each projection. They are three parameters describing the actual x‐ray source position, three parameters describing the position of the detector center, and two parameters describing the detector angular orientation. Results: Over 4,300 individual projections have been acquired and analyzed. The Trilogy was calibrated 4 times over a six month period while the Synergy and the Vero were calibrated twice and once, respectively. Quantitative geometric parameters of both MV and kV imaging systems were successfully evaluated. Isocenter consistency of the imaging systems was evaluated. Additionally, the gimbal‐based x‐ray source positioning of the Vero was examined. Conclusions: Geometric accuracies of both MV and integrated kV imaging systems were quantitatively evaluated by this QA tool.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024785466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024785466&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3181336

DO - 10.1118/1.3181336

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024785466

VL - 36

SP - 2485

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -