Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023
The performance of a new type accelerator uRT-linac 506c evaluated by a quality assurance automation system.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sun WenZhao, Shi ZhongHua, Yang Xin, Huang SiJuan, Liao Can, Zhang Wei, Li YongBao, Huang XiaoYan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of our quality assurance (QA) automation system and to evaluate the machine performance of a new type linear accelerator uRT-linac 506c within 6 months using this system.
METHODS: This QA automation system consists of a hollow cylindrical phantom with 18 steel balls in the phantom surface and an analysis software to process electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurement image data and report the results. The performance of the QA automation system was evaluated by the tests of repeatability, archivable precision, detectability of introduced errors, and the impact of set-up errors on QA results. The performance of this linac was evaluated by 31 items using this QA system over 6 months.
RESULTS: This QA system was able to automatically deliver QA plan, EPID image acquisition, and automatic analysis. All images acquiring and analysis took approximately 4.6 min per energy. The preset error of 0.1 mm in multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf were detected as 0.12 ± 0.01 mm for Bank A and 0.10 ± 0.01 mm in Bank B. The 2 mm setup error was detected as -1.95 ± 0.01 mm, -2.02 ± 0.01 mm, 2.01 ± 0.01 mm for X, Y, Z directions, respectively. And data from the tests of repeatability and detectability of introduced errors showed the standard deviation were all within 0.1 mm and 0.1°. and data of the machine performance were all within the tolerance specified by AAPM TG-142.
CONCLUSIONS: The QA automation system has high precision and good performance, and it can improve the QA efficiency. The performance of the new accelerator has also performed very well during the testing period.
METHODS: This QA automation system consists of a hollow cylindrical phantom with 18 steel balls in the phantom surface and an analysis software to process electronic portal imaging device (EPID) measurement image data and report the results. The performance of the QA automation system was evaluated by the tests of repeatability, archivable precision, detectability of introduced errors, and the impact of set-up errors on QA results. The performance of this linac was evaluated by 31 items using this QA system over 6 months.
RESULTS: This QA system was able to automatically deliver QA plan, EPID image acquisition, and automatic analysis. All images acquiring and analysis took approximately 4.6 min per energy. The preset error of 0.1 mm in multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf were detected as 0.12 ± 0.01 mm for Bank A and 0.10 ± 0.01 mm in Bank B. The 2 mm setup error was detected as -1.95 ± 0.01 mm, -2.02 ± 0.01 mm, 2.01 ± 0.01 mm for X, Y, Z directions, respectively. And data from the tests of repeatability and detectability of introduced errors showed the standard deviation were all within 0.1 mm and 0.1°. and data of the machine performance were all within the tolerance specified by AAPM TG-142.
CONCLUSIONS: The QA automation system has high precision and good performance, and it can improve the QA efficiency. The performance of the new accelerator has also performed very well during the testing period.