Dosimetric validation of the couch and coil model for high-field MR-linac treatment planning

Purpose

The precision of the dose delivery in radiation therapy with high-field MR-linacs is challenging due to the substantial variation in the beam attenuation of the patient positioning system (PPS) (the couch and coils) as a function of the gantry angle. This work aimed to compare the attenuation of two PPSs located at two different MR-linac sites through measurements and calculations in the treatment planning system (TPS).

Methods

Attenuation measurements were performed at every 1° gantry angle at the two sites with a cylindrical water phantom with a Farmer chamber inserted along the rotational axis of the phantom. The phantom was positioned with the chamber reference point (CRP) at the MR-linac isocentre. A compensation strategy was applied to minimise sinusoidal measurement errors due to, e.g. air cavity or setup. A series of tests were performed to assess the sensitivity to measurement uncertainties. The dose to a model of the cylindrical water phantom with the PPS added was calculated in the TPS (Monaco v5.4 as well as in a development version Dev of an upcoming release), for the same gantry angles as for the measurements. The TPS PPS model dependency of the dose calculation voxelisation resolution was also investigated.

Results

A comparison of the measured attenuation of the two PPSs yielded differences of less than 0.5% for most gantry angles. The maximum deviation between the attenuation measurements for the two different PPSs exceeded ±1% at two specific gantry angles 115° and 245°, where the beam traverses the most complex PPS structures. The attenuation increases from 0% to 25% in 15° intervals around these angles. The measured and calculated attenuation, as calculated in v5.4, was generally within 1-2% with a systematic overestimation of the attenuation for gantry angles around 180°, as well as a maximum error of 4-5% for a few discrete angles in 10° gantry angle intervals around the complex PPS structures. The PPS modelling was improved compared to v5.4 in Dev, especially around 180°, and the results of those calculations were within ±1%, but with a similar 4% maximum deviation for the most complex PPS structures.

Conclusions

Generally, the two tested PPS structures exhibit very similar attenuation as a function of the gantry angle, including the angles with a steep change in attenuation. Both TPS versions, v5.4 and Dev delivered clinically acceptable accuracy of the calculated dose, as the differences in the measurements were overall better than ±2%. Additionally, Dev improved the accuracy of the dose calculation to ±1% for gantry angles around 180°.