TrueBeam机器性能检查(MPC)评估:准直器设备检查(CDC)

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
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,&nbsp;Andrew Dipuglia,&nbsp;Brad Beeksma,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Andrew Dipuglia,&nbsp;Brad Beeksma,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估瓦里安机器性能检查(MPC)准直器设备检查(CDC)作为AAPM符合直线质量保证程序的一部分,用于常规MLC和颌骨测试。方法对CDC MLC定位、MLC间隙、下颌定位、下颌平行度进行重复性评估,并与常规QA进行一致性评估。还评估了MLC和下颌定位的敏感性。CDC的测量时间和可重复性通过在单一直线仪上计时和记录5次连续测量来评估。在5个月的时间里,在与常规QA相同的会议期间,对4名linacs进行每月的一致性评估。将MLC定位与高级尖桩栅栏测试进行比较,而将颌骨定位和平行度与部门内部基于EPID的方法进行比较。将MLC的间隙与Varian内置方法进行了比较。敏感性通过故意引入的误差来评估,除了MLC反弹,它通过跨叶库的方法之间的相关性来评估。结果CDC时间为4:09 (min:s)±1.8 s (2 SD)。测量的重复性为:MLC定位和间隙均为0.02 mm,颌骨定位为0.15 mm,颌骨平行度为0.009°(2 SD)。平均MLC定位一致性在0.32,MLC侧隙0.08 mm,下颌定位0.6 mm,下颌平行度0.06°。两种方法的最大平均差异分别为0.18 mm和0.71 mm。不同处理方法间的叶库间MLC反冲相关系数分别为0.84和0.9。结论MPC CDC已被证明可以提供与标准方法相当的MLC和颌骨定位评估,并且可以想象用于线性质量保证程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine-performance-check (MPC): Collimator device check (CDC)

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信