The comparison of VMAT test results for Clinac 2300C/D and TrueBeam accelerators

Abstract

Volumetric Modulated Radiotherapy (VMAT) implementation requires additional Quality Assurance (QA) tests to assure stable machine performance especially in terms of dynamic parameters synchronization. The lack of a twin machine for TrueBeam led us to the investigation of backup workflow with Clinacs 2300C/D. These Clinacs were upgraded to make them VMAT-enabled. This study aimed to compare long-term VMAT performance QA on 3 accelerators: TrueBeam (TB) and 2 Clinacs (V4 and V5). All VMAT test plans were provided by Varian. The test set consisted of initial and advanced tests. Initial tests were intended to check the gravity effect on Multileaf Collimator (MLC) and dosimetry system. As the results of these tests were correct and there was visual inspection applied for MLC positioning accuracy analysis, they were not presented in the paper. We focused on 2 advanced tests: dose rate vs gantry speed and dose rate vs MLC speed. The idea of the advanced test was to compare segments irradiated with the same fluence but different dose rate, gantry speed or MLC speed. Test sets were irradiated weekly on average for 12 months. These tests were analysed following Varian procedures and criteria using in-house-developed software. Apart from that we calculated correlation between all segments pairs and performed profile analysis. According to Varian criteria, all tests for TrueBeam were very well within the tolerances. Dose rate vs gantry speed tests for Clinacs were within allowed limits while as many as 28% and 6% of dose rate vs MLC speed tests failed for Clinacs V4 and V5, respectively. The profile analysis revealed tests for which the difference between measured and planned dose was over 3% and still met the criteria. The correlation analysis showed that VMAT plans on TrueBeam were irradiated repeatably because all segments were strongly correlated. There was no correlation between the segment with the highest MLC speed and the other segments on Clinacs in dose rate vs MLC speed test. This segment was irradiated randomly. TrueBeam is more reliable than upgraded Clinacs 2300C/D for VMAT performance. That is why in our centre the one of upgraded Clinac that performed tests better served only as a backup machine for VMAT technique, and the second one was excluded from clinical use for this technique.

Keywords: Accelerator upgrade; Quality assurance; Vmat.