Search

Purpose: The Radixact Synchrony system allows for target motion correction when tracking either fiducials in/around the target or a dense lesion in the lung. As such evaluation testing and quality assurance (QA) tests are required. Methods: To allow for QA procedures to be performed with a range of available phantoms evaluation of the dosimetric delivery accuracy was performed for a range of motions, phantoms, and motion platforms. A Computerized Imaging Reference Systems, Incorporated (CIRS) 1D motion platform and Accuray Tomotherapy "Cheese" phantom was utilized to perform absolute dose and GafChromic EBT3 film measurements. A HexaMotion platform and Delta4 phantom were utilized to quantify the effects of 1D and 3D motions. Inter‐device comparison was performed with the ArcCHECK and Delta4 phantoms and GafChromic EBT3 film, five patient plans were delivered to each phantom when static and with two different motion types both with and without Synchrony motion correction. Results: A range of QA tests are described. A phantom was designed to allow for daily verification of system functionality. This test allows for the detection of either fiducials or a dense silicone target with a stationary phantom. Monthly testing procedures are described that allow the user to verify the dosimetric improvement when utilizing synchrony delivery motion compensation versus uncorrected motions. These can be performed utilizing a 1D motion stage with an ion‐chamber and GafChromic EBT3 film to allow for a 2D dosimetric validation. Alternatively, a 3D motion platform can be utilized where available. Monthly and annual imaging tests are described. Finally, annual test procedures designed to verify the coincidence of the imaging system and treatment isocenter are described. The evaluation of the Synchrony system using a range of QA devices shows consistently high dosimetric accuracy with similar trends in passing criteria found with GafChromic EBT3 film, ArcCHECK, and Delta4 phantoms for density‐based respiratory model compensation. Conclusion: These results highlight the large improvements in the dose distribution when motion is accounted for with the Synchrony system as measured with a range of phantoms and motion platforms that the majority of users will have available. The testing methods and QA procedures described provide guidance for new users of the Radixact Synchrony system as they implement their own QA programs for this system, until such time as an AAPM task group report is made available. QA procedures including Kilovolts (kV) imaging quality metrics and imaging dose parameters, dose deposition accuracy, target detection coincidence, and target position detection accuracy are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) image quality metrics were evaluated on an Accuray Radixact unit to recommend scan settings for the implementation of a consistent adaptive radiotherapy program. Megavoltage computed tomography image quality was evaluated and compared to a kilovoltage CT (kVCT) simulator using a commercial cone beam computed tomography image quality phantom. Megavoltage computed tomographies were acquired on the Accuray Radixact using fine, normal, and coarse pitches, with all available reconstruction slice thicknesses, each of which were reconstructed using standard and iterative reconstruction (IR). Image quality metrics (IQM) were evaluated using DoseLab: automatically and manually calculated spatial resolution, subject contrast, and contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR). Scanning time was 15.6 s/cm for fine, 8.1 s/cm for normal, and 5.6 s/cm for coarse pitch. Automatically evaluated spatial resolutions ranged from 0.39, 0.41, to 0.42 lp/mm for standard reconstruction and from 0.24, 0.21, to 0.18 lp/mm for soft‐tissue IR, respectively, with general IR yielding values in between these. Spatial resolution for kVCT was measured to be at least 0.42 lp/mm. Contrast was consistent across MVCT settings with 8.1 ± 0.2%, while kVCT contrast was 10.27 ± 0.05%. CNR was calculated to be 3.3 ± 0.4 for standard reconstruction, 7.4 ± 0.4 for general IR, and 12.0 ± 1.9 for soft‐tissue IR. It was found that increasing reconstruction slice thickness for a given pitch does not improve IQMs. Based on the consistency of contrast metrics across pitch values and the only slightly reduced spatial resolution using normal compared to fine pitch, we recommend the use of normal pitch with 2 mm slice thickness to maximize image quality for ART while limiting scanning time. Only for sites for which improved CNR is required and reduced spatial resolution is acceptable, soft‐tissue IR is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]