Search

Purpose: The RefleXion X1 is a novel radiotherapy machine designed for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and biology-guided radiotherapy (BgRT). Its treatment planning system (TPS) generates IMRT and SBRT plans for a 6MV-FFF beam delivered axially via 50 firing positions with the couch advancing every 2.1 mm. The purpose of this work is to report the TPS commissioning results for the first clinical installation of RefleXion™ X1., Methods: CT images of multiple phantoms were imported into the RefleXion TPS to evaluate the accuracy of data transfer, anatomical modeling, plan evaluation, and dose calculation. Comparisons were made between the X1, Eclipse™, and MIM™. Dosimetric parameters for open static fields were evaluated in water and heterogeneous slab phantoms. Representative clinical IMRT and SBRT cases were planned and verified with ion chamber, film, and ArcCHECK @ measurements. The agreement between TPS and measurements for various clinical plans was evaluated using Gamma analysis with a criterion of 3%/2 mm for ArcCHECK @ and film. End-to-end (E2E) testing was performed using anthropomorphic head and lung phantoms., Results: The average difference between the TPS-reported and known HU values was -1.4 ± 6.0 HU. For static fields, the agreements between the TPS-calculated and measured PDD 10 , crossline profiles, and inline profiles (FWHM) were within 1.5%, 1.3%, and 0.5 mm, respectively. Measured output factors agreed with the TPS within 1.3%. Measured and calculated dose for static fields in heterogeneous phantoms agreed within 2.5%. The ArcCHECK @ mean absolute Gamma passing rate was 96.4% ± 3.4% for TG 119 and TG 244 plans and 97.8% ± 3.6% for the 21 clinical plans. E2E film analysis showed 0.8 mm total targeting error for isocentric and 1.1 mm for off-axis treatments., Conclusions: The TPS commissioning results of the RefleXion X1 TPS were within the tolerances specified by AAPM TG 53, MPPG 5.a, TG 119, and TG 148. A subset of the commissioning tests has been identified as baseline data for an ongoing QA program., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)

This study reports the beam commissioning results for the first clinical RefleXion Linac., Methods: The X1 produces a 6 MV photon beam and the maximum clinical field size is 40 × 2 cm 2 at source-to-axis distance of 85 cm. Treatment fields are collimated by a binary multileaf collimator (MLC) system with 64 leaves with width of 0.625 cm and y-jaw pairs to provide either a 1 or 2 cm opening. The mechanical alignment of the radiation source, the y-jaw, and MLC were checked with film and ion chambers. The beam parameters were characterized using a diode detector in a compact water tank. In-air lateral profiles and in-water percentage depth dose (PDD) were measured for beam modeling of the treatment planning system (TPS). The lateral profiles, PDDs, and output factors were acquired for field sizes from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm 2 field to verify the beam modeling. The rotational output variation and synchronicity were tested to check the gantry angle, couch motion, and gantry rotation., Results: The source misalignments were 0.049 mm in y-direction, 0.66% out-of-focus in x-direction. The divergence of the beam axis was 0.36 mm with a y-jaw twist of 0.03°. Clinical off-axis treatment fields shared a common center in y-direction were within 0.03 mm. The MLC misalignment and twist were 0.57 mm and 0.15°. For all measured fields ranging from the size from 1.25 × 1 to 40 × 2 cm 2 , the mean difference between measured and TPS modeled PDD at 10 cm depth was -0.3%. The mean transverse profile difference in the field core was -0.3% ± 1.1%. The full-width half maximum (FWHM) modeling was within 0.5 mm. The measured output factors agreed with TPS within 0.8%., Conclusions: This study summarizes our specific experience commissioning the first novel RefleXion linac, which may assist future users of this technology when implementing it into their own clinics., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine.)