Urszula Jelen, Zoë Moutrie, Jack D Aylward, Michael G Jameson
{"title":"Beam model development and clinical experience with RadCalc for treatment plan quality assurance in online adaptive workflow with an MR-linac.","authors":"Urszula Jelen, Zoë Moutrie, Jack D Aylward, Michael G Jameson","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this work was to report on the optimization, commissioning, and validation of a beam model using a commercial independent dose verification software RadCalc version 7.2 (Lifeline Software Inc, Tyler, TX, USA), along with 4 years of experience employing RadCalc for offline and online monitor unit (MU) verification on the Elekta Unity MR-linac (MRL) for a range of clinical sites.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Calculation settings and model parameters, including the Clarkson integration settings and radiation/light field offset, have been systematically examined and optimized, and pitfalls in the use of density inhomogeneity corrections and in off-axis calculations were investigated and addressed. The resulting model was commissioned by comparing RadCalc calculations to measurements for a variety of cases, selected following relevant recommendations, ranging from simple fields in a water tank to end-to-end point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For simple geometries, the agreement was within 2%, and for complex geometries, within 5%. When validating against the Monaco (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) treatment planning system (TPS), for 39 clinical commissioning plans, the mean total point dose difference was -0.3 ± 0.8% (-2.0%-1.1%). Finally, when applied retrospectively to 4085 clinical plan calculations, the agreement with the TPS was 0.3 ± 1.1% (-4.8%-4.2%), with fail rates of 0.1% for total point dose (discrepancy > 4%) and 0.3% for individual fields (discrepancy > 10%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Improved calculation agreement with the TPS and therefore increased confidence in the online QA, opened the way for an automated and physics-light independent MU verification workflow within our MRL program.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70125"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this work was to report on the optimization, commissioning, and validation of a beam model using a commercial independent dose verification software RadCalc version 7.2 (Lifeline Software Inc, Tyler, TX, USA), along with 4 years of experience employing RadCalc for offline and online monitor unit (MU) verification on the Elekta Unity MR-linac (MRL) for a range of clinical sites.
Methods: Calculation settings and model parameters, including the Clarkson integration settings and radiation/light field offset, have been systematically examined and optimized, and pitfalls in the use of density inhomogeneity corrections and in off-axis calculations were investigated and addressed. The resulting model was commissioned by comparing RadCalc calculations to measurements for a variety of cases, selected following relevant recommendations, ranging from simple fields in a water tank to end-to-end point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic phantom.
Results: For simple geometries, the agreement was within 2%, and for complex geometries, within 5%. When validating against the Monaco (Elekta AB, Stockholm, Sweden) treatment planning system (TPS), for 39 clinical commissioning plans, the mean total point dose difference was -0.3 ± 0.8% (-2.0%-1.1%). Finally, when applied retrospectively to 4085 clinical plan calculations, the agreement with the TPS was 0.3 ± 1.1% (-4.8%-4.2%), with fail rates of 0.1% for total point dose (discrepancy > 4%) and 0.3% for individual fields (discrepancy > 10%).
Conclusions: Improved calculation agreement with the TPS and therefore increased confidence in the online QA, opened the way for an automated and physics-light independent MU verification workflow within our MRL program.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic