Michael Barnes, Andrew Dipuglia, Brad Beeksma, Joerg Lehmann
{"title":"TrueBeam机器性能检查(MPC)评估:准直器设备检查(CDC)","authors":"Michael Barnes, Andrew Dipuglia, Brad Beeksma, Joerg Lehmann","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the Varian machine performance check (MPC) collimator devices check (CDC) for routine MLC and jaw testing as part of an AAPM compliant linac QA program.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>CDC MLC positioning, MLC backlash, jaw positioning, and jaw parallelism were each assessed for repeatability and concordance with conventional QA. MLC and jaw positioning were also assessed for sensitivity. Measurement time and repeatability of CDC were assessed by timing and recording five successive measurements on a single linac. Concordance was assessed monthly over 5 months on four linacs, conducted during the same session as conventional QA. MLC positioning was compared to an advanced picket fence test, while jaw positioning and parallelism were compared to department in-house EPID based methods. MLC backlash was compared to the Varian built-in method. Sensitivity was assessed via deliberately introduced errors except for MLC backlash, which was assessed via correlation between methods across leaf banks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>CDC requires 4:09 (min:s) ± 1.8 s (2 SD) to perform. Repeatability was measured to be: 0.02 mm for both MLC positioning and backlash, 0.15 mm for jaw positioning and 0.009° for jaw parallelism (2 SD). Concordance was observed for mean MLC positioning to within 0.32 , 0.08 mm for MLC backlash, 0.6 mm for jaw positioning and 0.06° for jaw parallelism. MLC and jaw positioning sensitivity were observed with maximum mean difference between methods of 0.18 and 0.71 mm, respectively. MLC backlash correlation coefficient between methods across leaf banks was observed to 0.84 and 0.9 for banks A and B, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>MPC CDC has been demonstrated to provide acceptably equivalent MLC and jaw positioning assessment to standard methods and could conceivably be used in a linac QA program for these purposes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70171","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine-performance-check (MPC): Collimator device check (CDC)\",\"authors\":\"Michael Barnes, Andrew Dipuglia, Brad Beeksma, Joerg Lehmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the Varian machine performance check (MPC) collimator devices check (CDC) for routine MLC and jaw testing as part of an AAPM compliant linac QA program.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>CDC MLC positioning, MLC backlash, jaw positioning, and jaw parallelism were each assessed for repeatability and concordance with conventional QA. MLC and jaw positioning were also assessed for sensitivity. Measurement time and repeatability of CDC were assessed by timing and recording five successive measurements on a single linac. Concordance was assessed monthly over 5 months on four linacs, conducted during the same session as conventional QA. MLC positioning was compared to an advanced picket fence test, while jaw positioning and parallelism were compared to department in-house EPID based methods. MLC backlash was compared to the Varian built-in method. Sensitivity was assessed via deliberately introduced errors except for MLC backlash, which was assessed via correlation between methods across leaf banks.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>CDC requires 4:09 (min:s) ± 1.8 s (2 SD) to perform. Repeatability was measured to be: 0.02 mm for both MLC positioning and backlash, 0.15 mm for jaw positioning and 0.009° for jaw parallelism (2 SD). Concordance was observed for mean MLC positioning to within 0.32 , 0.08 mm for MLC backlash, 0.6 mm for jaw positioning and 0.06° for jaw parallelism. MLC and jaw positioning sensitivity were observed with maximum mean difference between methods of 0.18 and 0.71 mm, respectively. MLC backlash correlation coefficient between methods across leaf banks was observed to 0.84 and 0.9 for banks A and B, respectively.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>MPC CDC has been demonstrated to provide acceptably equivalent MLC and jaw positioning assessment to standard methods and could conceivably be used in a linac QA program for these purposes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70171\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70171\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70171","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}
Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine-performance-check (MPC): Collimator device check (CDC)
Purpose
To evaluate the Varian machine performance check (MPC) collimator devices check (CDC) for routine MLC and jaw testing as part of an AAPM compliant linac QA program.
Methods
CDC MLC positioning, MLC backlash, jaw positioning, and jaw parallelism were each assessed for repeatability and concordance with conventional QA. MLC and jaw positioning were also assessed for sensitivity. Measurement time and repeatability of CDC were assessed by timing and recording five successive measurements on a single linac. Concordance was assessed monthly over 5 months on four linacs, conducted during the same session as conventional QA. MLC positioning was compared to an advanced picket fence test, while jaw positioning and parallelism were compared to department in-house EPID based methods. MLC backlash was compared to the Varian built-in method. Sensitivity was assessed via deliberately introduced errors except for MLC backlash, which was assessed via correlation between methods across leaf banks.
Results
CDC requires 4:09 (min:s) ± 1.8 s (2 SD) to perform. Repeatability was measured to be: 0.02 mm for both MLC positioning and backlash, 0.15 mm for jaw positioning and 0.009° for jaw parallelism (2 SD). Concordance was observed for mean MLC positioning to within 0.32 , 0.08 mm for MLC backlash, 0.6 mm for jaw positioning and 0.06° for jaw parallelism. MLC and jaw positioning sensitivity were observed with maximum mean difference between methods of 0.18 and 0.71 mm, respectively. MLC backlash correlation coefficient between methods across leaf banks was observed to 0.84 and 0.9 for banks A and B, respectively.
Conclusion
MPC CDC has been demonstrated to provide acceptably equivalent MLC and jaw positioning assessment to standard methods and could conceivably be used in a linac QA program for these purposes.
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