MVCT Image. Robert Staton, PhD DABR. MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando. ACMP Annual Meeting 2011

Similar documents
The Radixact System Experience at Miami Cancer Institute. Tino Romaguera, D.Sc. Senior Physicist

Varian Edge Experience. Jinkoo Kim, Ph.D Henry Ford Health System

Quality Assurance of Helical Tomotherapy Machines

Disclosure. Outline. Machine Overview. I have received honoraria from Accuray in the past. I have had travel expenses paid by Accuray in the past.

What do we Know About Adaptive Radiotherapy? Lei Dong, Ph.D. Scripps Proton Therapy Center San Diego, California

7/10/2015. Acknowledgments. Institution-specific TG-142? AAPM:Task Group-142. Failure-Mode & Effects Analysis

STEREOTACTIC DOSE VERIFICATION PHANTOM VERSATILE STEREOTACTIC QA PHANTOMS

Image Registration for Radiation Therapy Applications: Part 2: In-room Volumetric Imaging

Helical Tomotherapy Experience. TomoTherapy Whole Brain Head & Neck Prostate Lung Summary. HI-ART TomoTherapy System. HI-ART TomoTherapy System

EORTC Member Facility Questionnaire

Applications of Modern Radiotherapy Systems

AAPM Task Group 180 Image Guidance Doses Delivered During Radiotherapy: Quantification, Management, and Reduction

Normal tissue doses from MV image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) using orthogonal MV and MV-CBCT

Verification of treatment planning system parameters in tomotherapy using EBT Radiochromic Film

IMRT/IGRT Patient Treatment: A Community Hospital Experience. Charles M. Able, Assistant Professor

Unrivaled, End-to-End

Traceability and absorbed dose standards for small fields, IMRT and helical tomotherapy

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy: Dosimetric Aspects & Commissioning Strategies

IGRT Solution for the Living Patient and the Dynamic Treatment Problem

IMRT QUESTIONNAIRE. Address: Physicist: Research Associate: Dosimetrist: Responsible Radiation Oncologist(s)

In-Room Radiographic Imaging for Localization

Learning objective. Outline. Acknowledgements. KV CBCT Imaging Part I. R Hammoud AAPM 2008 CE-Therapy (SAM) 1

Leila E. A. Nichol Royal Surrey County Hospital

Learning objectives. What kind of motions? 3D Dosimetry in the Clinic: Motion Interplay Effects in Dynamic Radiotherapy

Future upcoming technologies and what audit needs to address

Pre-treatment and in-vivo dosimetry of Helical Tomotherapy treatment plans using the Dosimetry Check system

Evaluation of Dosimetry Check software for IMRT patient-specific quality assurance

Feasibility study on effect and stability of adaptive radiotherapy on kilovoltage cone beam CT

Learning Objectives. Clinically operating proton therapy facilities. Overview of Quality Assurance in Proton Therapy. Omar Zeidan

In-Room Radiographic Imaging for Localization

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy - Patient Specific QA

A VMAT PLANNING SOLUTION FOR NECK CANCER PATIENTS USING THE PINNACLE 3 PLANNING SYSTEM *

Are Transmission Detectors a Necessary Tool for a Safe Patient Radiation Therapy Program?

Work partially supported by VisionRT

Limits of Precision and Accuracy of Radiation Delivery Systems

Automated Plan Quality Check with Scripting. Rajesh Gutti, Ph.D. Clinical Medical Physicist

Page 1. Helical (Spiral) Tomotherapy. UW Helical Tomotherapy Unit. Helical (Spiral) Tomotherapy. MVCT of an Anesthetized Dog with a Sinus Tumor

Helical Tomotherapy Research in London, Ontario. A Cancer Care Ontario Partner

SRS Uncertainty: Linac and CyberKnife Uncertainties

Accuracy Requirements and Uncertainty Considerations in Radiation Therapy

Linac or Non-Linac Demystifying And Decoding The Physics Of SBRT/SABR

Disclosures. Clinical Implementation of SRS/SBRT. Overview. Anil Sethi, PhD. Speaker: BrainLAB Standard Imaging Research collaboration: RaySearch

Introduction. Modalities used in imaging guidance. Flat panel detector. X-ray Imaging Dose to Patients in the Era of Image-Guided Radiation Therapy

Reena Phurailatpam. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy of Medulloblastoma using Helical TomoTherapy: Initial Experience from planning to delivery

Clinical Implementation of SRS/SBRT

Effective and efficient radiotherapy dosimetry audit: Where to next?

Can we hit the target? Can we put the dose where we want it? Quality Assurance in Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy

Implementation of the 2012 ACR CT QC Manual in a Community Hospital Setting BRUCE E. HASSELQUIST, PH.D., DABR, DABSNM ASPIRUS WAUSAU HOSPITAL

Anatomical-Based Adaptive RT: It Begins Here!

CBCT of the patient in the treatment position has gained wider applications for setup verification during radiotherapy.

Intensity Modulated RadioTherapy

Spatially Fractionated Radiation Therapy: GRID Sponsored by.decimal Friday, August 22, Pamela Myers, Ph.D.

Quality assurance and credentialing requirements for sites using inverse planned IMRT Techniques

DELIVERED PATIENT DOSE

ph fax

MAX-HD SRS PHANTOM THE COMPREHENSIVE END-TO-END SRS PHANTOM SCAN PLAN LOCALIZE TREAT. distributed by:

Agenda. 1.1 Why pre-treament dosimetry in IMRT/VMAT? 1.2 Verification systems in IMRT/VMAT: from 0D to 3D (4D) dosimetry to real time dosimetry

Dosimetric Analysis Report

IROC Liver Phantom. Guidelines for Planning and Irradiating the IROC Liver Phantom. Revised July 2015

Presentation Outline. Patient Setup Imaging in RT: Getting the Most Bang for your Buck. Main Errors in RT. Hypothetical Patient Examples

VMAT plans for treatment prostate cancer: Dosimetric verifications and comparison with 3D-CRT and IMRT

8/2/2018. Disclosure. Online MR-IG-ART Dosimetry and Dose Accumulation

A new geometric and mechanical verification device for medical LINACs

Objectives. Image-Guided RT: Process. kv CBCT Novel Clinical Applications and Future Directions. Standard Clinical Uses. Novel Applications.

L IGRT IN TOMOTERAPIA: Aspetti Clinici e Fisici. N. Di Muzio Istituto Scientifico S. Raffaele- Milano

Treatment Efficiency and Optimization of Patient Care with IBA ProteusOne

An Independent Audit and Analysis of Small Field Dosimetry Quality Assurance. David Followill IROC Houston QA Center

Data Collected During Audits for Clinical Trials. July 21, 2010 Geoffrey S. Ibbott, Ph.D. and RPC Staff

8/2/2017. Objectives. Disclosures. Clinical Implementation of an MR-Guided Treatment Unit

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-LA CROSSE Graduate Studies

Overview of MLC-based Linac Radiosurgery

Contributors to this Talk

Comparison of TLD dose and reconstructed dose for post-mastectomy radiation therapy with TomoTherapy

Radiotherapy In-vivo Treatment Verification: Multi-center analysis for more than 6 million fractions delivered

biij Initial experience in treating lung cancer with helical tomotherapy

Implementing New Technologies for Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy

Accuray Radixact at University of WI: The next chapter in TomoTherapy innovation

Quality Assurance of TPS: comparison of dose calculation for stereotactic patients in Eclipse and iplan RT Dose

Toshiba Aquillion 64 CT Scanner. Phantom Center Periphery Center Periphery Center Periphery

THE TRANSITION FROM 2D TO 3D AND TO IMRT - RATIONALE AND CRITICAL ELEMENTS

Application(s) of Alanine

Image Fusion, Contouring, and Margins in SRS

Image Guided Stereotactic Radiotherapy of the Lung

CURRICULUM OUTLINE FOR TRANSITIONING FROM 2-D RT TO 3-D CRT AND IMRT

A quality assurance tool for helical tomotherapy using a step-wedge phantom and the on-board MVCT detector

From position verification and correction to adaptive RT Adaptive RT and dose accumulation

Many vendors are beginning to allow couch motion during radiation delivery.

Hot Topics in SRS: Small Field Dosimetry & Other Treatment Uncertainties. Sonja Dieterich, PhD University of California Davis

Additional Questions for Review 2D & 3D

Advanced Technology Consortium (ATC) Credentialing Procedures for 3D Conformal Therapy Protocols 3D CRT Benchmark*

Imaging e tecnologia: cosa c è dietro l angolo?

Imaging Rotation. University of Michigan Department of Radiation Oncology Division of Radiation Physics. Resident:

8/3/2016. The EPID Strikes Back! - EPID In-Vivo Dosimetry. EPID Research Number of Publications. Why EPID in-vivo? Detectable errors: patient

Quality Assurance of Ultrasound Imaging in Radiation Therapy. Zuofeng Li, D.Sc. Murty S. Goddu, Ph.D. Washington University St.

SBRT fundamentals. Outline 8/2/2012. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance Educational Session

Credentialing for the Use of IGRT in Clinical Trials

Small field diode dosimetry

CyberKnife Technology in Ablative Radiation Therapy. Jun Yang PhD Cyberknife Center of Philadelphia Drexel University Jan 2017

Measurement Guided Dose Reconstruction (MGDR) Transitioning VMAT QA from phantom to patient geometry

Transcription:

MVCT Image Guidance and QA Robert Staton, PhD DABR MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando ACMP Annual Meeting 2011

Disclosures MDACCO has received grant funding from TomoTherapy, Inc.

Overview TomoTherapy MVCT review Recommended QA procedures Implications for Adaptive Radiotherapy

Megavoltage CT Imaging 6 MV Accelerator (tuned to 3.5 MV for MVCT) Primary Collimator 6mm slice width (1mm for 4.x software) 85cm Binary MLC (all open during MVCT) 85 cm Gantry Aperture 40 cm CT FOV Approximately 50cm

Spectral Energy Distribution

MVCT Imaging 3 choices of reconstructed slice thickness Fine (2mm) Normal (4mm) Coarse (6mm) Gantry Period = 10 sec Couch speed: Fine = 4 mm/rotation Normal = 8 mm/rotation Coarse = 12 mm/rotation Typical scan times 2-4 mins

Imaging Time: Examples Prostate: t Fine, 34 slices, 6.8 cm => 170 seconds Head and Neck: Normal, 42 slices, 16.8 cm => 210 seconds Thorax: Coarse, 44 slices, 26.4 cm => 220 seconds

Prostate Diagnostic KVCT TomoTherapy MVCT

Head and Neck Diagnostic KVCT TomoTherapy MVCT

Imaging Frequency At M. D. Anderson-Orlando, we MVCT for every tx What if. we had imaged only 1st day? we had imaged only first 5 days? we had imaged weekly?

Imaging Frequency Zeidan et al., IJROBP, 67(3), pp. 670 677, 2007 Retrospective analysis of 24 HN patients (802 tx) All 802 fx were IGRT Replay different protocols: Use the daily MVCT images Calculate positioning errors for different frequencies of IGRT

Imaging Frequency IG % - Protocol A: no imaging (system. corr.) - Protocol B: Image 1, 1-3 3, 1-5 5,1-7 day - Protocol C: Weekly imaging 0 % 3-21% 20% - Protocol D: first 5, then weekly 31% - Protocol E: every other day IG, running average 50%

Imaging Frequency Results systematic errors are reduced with minimal image workload (i.e. 9% IGRT) Random errors are not reduced for non-ig treatments

Imaging Frequency % of Residual Error vs. % IGRT 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % Image guidanced > 3mm (all-tx) > 5mm (all-tx) > 3mm (non-ig) > 5mm (non-ig)

MVCT Imaging QA What do I need to QA? How often?

TG-148 Imaging QA Geometric Image Quality Imaging Dose

TG-148 Daily QA

Daily QA Example -Test imaging, registration, alignment chain 3) Align & test automatic couch setup 1) Scan 2)R Register & compare to known offsets Tolerance: Consistency within 1 mm

TG-148 Monthly

TG-148 Quarterly

Monthly QA Example One MVCT scan Geometric Noise Uniformity Spatial resolution MVCT HU Dose

Suggested Test & Tolerances Geometric Verify dimensions of phantom are consistent with known values Alignment of fiducials TG-148: 2mm/1mm (SRS/SBRT) Noise Select a consistent ROI in a homogeneous portion of the cheese phantom TG-148: Consistency with Baseline MDACCO Std Dev of Central ROI Reference value: ~40 HU

Suggested Test & Tolerances Uniformity Compare central and peripheral MVCT HU in uniform phantom TG-148 Compare to Baseline Within 25 HU if using MVCT for dose calculations

Suggested Test & Tolerances Noise Assess low contrast visibility using phantom with various density plugs TG-148: Compare to baseline For example, can you visualize the 1.02 density plug? Tomo spec: 3-cm object of 3% difference in electron density

Suggested Test & Tolerances Spatial Resolution TG-148 1.6mm high contrast object 3 rd row of contrast detail plug

Image Artifacts Button/Zipper Artifact Due to sharp dropoff of detector response in the center of the detector array Possible solutions Energy spectral recalibration Repositioning of detector

Suggested Test & Tolerances MVCT Dose Measure MSAD in phantom with ion chamber in a consistent location Typical values 1-3 cgy TG-148: compare to baseline MDACCO Scan of entire cheese phantom (18 cm) Normal 1.2 1.8 cgy

Suggested Test & Tolerances MVCT HU calibration Important if using dose calculations on MVCT TG-148: Near Water within 30 HU of baseline Lung/Bone within 50 HU of baseline

The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again. TG-148 Annual QA Verification of imaging/treatment/laser coordinate system Design a phantom end-to-end test Film or diode array TG-148 tolerance: 2mm/1mm (SRS/SBRT)

Component Replacements Imaging QA is recommended after major component replacements Magnetron SSM Target Linac

Adaptive Radiotherapy Allows assessment of the dosimetric impact of anatomical changes during the course of treatment

Adaptive Protocol at MDACCO Daily MVCT scans are collected for H&N patients Images are run through a research version of TomoTherapy Planned Adaptive software Automatically ti deforms contours to MVCT images and recalculates dosimetry for that fraction Cumulative and daily DVHs can be used to tract changes in the dosimetry Replans are triggered by physician review

Planned Adaptive Research Version

Thorax Phantom DVH No Deformation

Previous MVCT Study Thorax Phantom DVH Previous Calculation K M Langen et al, The use of megavoltage CT (MVCT) images for dose recomputations, Phys Med Biol 50, 4259-76 (2005).

Thorax Phantom Density Comparison: Original IVDT

MVCT Uniformity Cup of water used to calibrate IVDT 27 HU On one machine, the HU value increased near the edge of the FOV 5 HU This is illustrated by the bottle of water shown at the right 15 HU 37 HU

Virtual Water (Cheese) CT Calibration Phantom Water plug shown at upper-right Cheese phantom Cheese phantom configuration shown at lower-right

Thorax Phantom Density Comparison: New IVDT

New Thorax Phantom DVH Less than 1% error at D 50

Tomo1 Temporal MVCT Number Variability 120 Tomo1 Solid Water Variation 100 103 HU MVCT Number 80 60 40 20 0 5 HU -20

Tomo2 Temporal MVCT Number Variability 120 100 Tomo2 Solid Water Variation 100 HU MVC CT Number 80 60 40 20 31 HU 0

Energy variation HI*ART II S/N 002, ENERGY CHECK 0.4350 0.4300 Target changes 0.4250 0.4200 0.4150 0.4100 DEPTH DOSE AT 15 cm 0.4050 0.4000 10-Dec-02 28-Jun-03 14-Jan-04 1-Aug-04 17-Feb-05 5-Sep-05 24-Mar-06 10-Oct-06 28-Apr-07 14-Nov-07 1J 08 DATE

Effect of Component Changes 110 Tomo1 Solid Water Variation for 2009 100 90 Ion Chamber Magnetron/Circulator Target MVC CT Number 80 70 60 Magnetron/Target SSM/Gun board Magnetron Magnetron/Gun board 50 40 30 20

IVDT Curve Comparison IVDT curve appears to maintain shape over time 1000 The slope of the curve appears to 0 increase over time (with target wear) 200 MVCT Numb ber 800 600 400 200 IVDT Temporal Variation Maximum Minimum 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 There is greater variation in MVCT number for higher density materials Therefore, dosimetric errors will likely be greater in regions containing higher proportions of these materials 400 600 800 1000 1200 Density (g/cc)

Dosimetric Error Due to Temporal MVCT Number Variability Solid Water MVCT Number 103 86 80 69 60 49 41 29 20 5 PTV1 D 50 (Gy) 2.02 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 Error 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.2% Rt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Error 0.7% 07% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.2% 02% 0.1% 01% 00% 0.0% 02% 0.2% 04% 0.4% 05% 0.5% 08% 0.8% Lt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Error 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% All values shown are given for dose recalculations performed on a single MVCT of a head & neck patient Total D 50 variation in the primary target was ~3% Parotid D 50 variation was ~1.5% This is consistent with estimates based on simple physics models If the IVDT or MVCT images were never recalibrated, one could expect to limit the dosimetric error due to temporal HU variations to 3% If recalibrations were performed to maintain the solid water MVCT number within 30 HU of the commissioned IVDT value, dosimetric errors should be within ±1% These errors should increase as depth increases

Dosimetric Error Due to Temporal MVCT Number Variability Solid Water MVCT Number 103 86 80 69 60 49 41 29 20 5 PTV1 D 50 (Gy) 2.02 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 Error 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.2% Rt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Error 0.7% 07% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.2% 02% 0.1% 01% 00% 0.0% 02% 0.2% 04% 0.4% 05% 0.5% 08% 0.8% Lt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Error 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% All values shown are given for dose recalculations performed on a single MVCT of a head & neck patient Total D 50 variation in the primary target was ~3% Parotid D 50 variation was ~1.5% This is consistent with estimates based on simple physics models If the IVDT or MVCT images were never recalibrated, one could expect to limit the dosimetric error due to temporal HU variations to 3% If recalibrations were performed to maintain the solid water MVCT number within 30 HU of the commissioned IVDT value, dosimetric errors should be within ±1% These errors should increase as depth increases

Dosimetric Error Due to Temporal MVCT Number Variability Solid Water MVCT Number 103 86 80 69 60 49 41 29 20 5 PTV1 D 50 (Gy) 2.02 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 Error 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.2% Rt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Error 0.7% 07% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.2% 02% 0.1% 01% 00% 0.0% 02% 0.2% 04% 0.4% 05% 0.5% 08% 0.8% Lt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Error 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% All values shown are given for dose recalculations performed on a single MVCT of a head & neck patient Total D 50 variation in the primary target was ~3% Parotid D 50 variation was ~1.5% This is consistent with estimates based on simple physics models If the IVDT or MVCT images were never recalibrated, one could expect to limit the dosimetric error due to temporal HU variations to 3% If recalibrations were performed to maintain the solid water MVCT number within 30 HU of the commissioned IVDT value, dosimetric errors should be within ±1% These errors should increase as depth increases

Dosimetric Error Due to Temporal MVCT Number Variability Solid Water MVCT Number 103 86 80 69 60 49 41 29 20 5 PTV1 D 50 (Gy) 2.02 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 Error 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.2% Rt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Error 0.7% 07% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.2% 02% 0.1% 01% 00% 0.0% 02% 0.2% 04% 0.4% 05% 0.5% 08% 0.8% Lt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Error 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% All values shown are given for dose recalculations performed on a single MVCT of a head & neck patient Total D 50 variation in the primary target was ~3% Parotid D 50 variation was ~1.5% This is consistent with estimates based on simple physics models If the IVDT or MVCT images were never recalibrated, one could expect to limit the dosimetric error due to temporal HU variations to 3% If recalibrations were performed to maintain the solid water MVCT number within 30 HU of the commissioned IVDT value, dosimetric errors should be within ±1% These errors should increase as depth increases

Dosimetric Error Due to Temporal MVCT Number Variability Solid Water MVCT Number 103 86 80 69 60 49 41 29 20 5 PTV1 D 50 (Gy) 2.02 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.07 2.08 Error 1.7% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.8% 1.2% Rt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Error 0.7% 07% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.2% 02% 0.1% 01% 00% 0.0% 02% 0.2% 04% 0.4% 05% 0.5% 08% 0.8% Lt Parotid D 50 (Gy) 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Error 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% All values shown are given for dose recalculations performed on a single MVCT of a head & neck patient Total D 50 variation in the primary target was ~3% Parotid D 50 variation was ~1.5% This is consistent with estimates based on simple physics models If the IVDT or MVCT images were never recalibrated, one could expect to limit the dosimetric error due to temporal HU variations to 3% If recalibrations were performed to maintain the solid water MVCT number within 30 HU of the commissioned IVDT value, dosimetric errors should be within ±1% These errors should increase as depth increases

Patient Example: Linac Change Linac Change Solid water: 36 HU to 8 HU 1.2% increase in dose to PTV1

Baseline MVCT Recalculation Error Water Head Thorax MVCT kvct Error MVCT kvct Error MVCT kvct Error D 95 (Gy) 1.99 2.00 0.7% 1.97 2.00 1.3% 1.99 2.00 0.4% D 50 (Gy) 2.01 2.01 0.4% 2.01 2.04 1.3% 2.05 2.03 0.7% D 05 (Gy) 2.03 2.04 0.4% 2.04 2.07 1.1% 2.09 2.08 0.4% MVCT images were obtained for three phantoms The cheese phantom was scanned at the same time to obtain an accurate IVDT and eliminate any temporal effects The greatest baseline error occurred for the head phantom at -1.3%

Recommendations MVCT recalibration frequency depends on the dosimetric error that one is willing to accept Based on this data, if the MVCT were never recalibrated, a maximum dosimetric error of ~4% would be possible Including baseline error and temporal variations We recommend recalibrating the MVCT to maintain the MVCT number of water within ±30 HU of the commissioned value This would result in an overall dosimetric error of not greater than ±2.5% for the typical head & neck patient This is consistent with TG-148 recommendations We recommend checking the IVDT after major component changes affecting the beamline There appears to be a consistent reduction in MVCT number after linac or target changes Magnetron changes are less consistent, but some large variations were observed Apart from major component changes, the IVDT should be checked on a monthly basis

Conclusions Imaging QA is important for maintaining an IGRT program More frequent QA is needed when using the images for dose calculations TG-148 is a good source of information for TomoTherapyTh users

Acknowledgements Katja Langen, PhD MDACCO, chair of TG-148 Jason Pukala, MS UF graduate student