ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S4918

Physics - Quality assurance and auditing

ESTRO 2024

[4] Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, Moran J, Pawlicki T, Molineu A, Li H, Wijesooriya K, Shi J, Xia P, Papanikolaou N, Low DA. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: Recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):e53-e83. doi: 10.1002/mp.12810

[5] Cavinato S, Fusella M, Paiusco M, Scaggion A. Quantitative assessment of helical tomotherapy plans complexity. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 Jan;24(1):e13781. doi: 10.1002/acm2.13781.

[6] Cavinato S, Bettinelli A, Dusi F, Fusella M, Germani A, Marturano F, Paiusco M, Pivato N, Rossato MA, Scaggion A. Prediction models as decision-support tools for virtual patient-specific quality assurance of helical tomotherapy plans. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2023 Mar 28;26:100435. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2023.100435.

[7] Cavinato S and Scaggion A. Technical Note: UCoMX: Universal Complexity Metrics Extractor. Submitted to Medical Physics.

[8] Santos T, Ventura T, Mateus J, Capela M, Lopes MDC. On the complexity of helical tomotherapy treatment plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Jul;21(7):107-118. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12895.

2724

Digital Poster

Patient interchangeability between beam-matched accelerators

Diego Jurado-Bruggeman 1,2 , Carles Muñoz-Montplet 1,2,3

1 Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO), Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Girona, Spain. 2 Girona Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBGI), ONCORFIM, Girona, Spain. 3 University of Girona, Medical Sciences, Girona, Spain

Purpose/Objective:

To evaluate the degree of patient interchangeability between the two beam-matched accelerators of our institution without repeating patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements. The study involved patients from several locations, beam energies, and treatment techniques.

Material/Methods:

Two Varian TrueBeams with the following beam energies were employed: 6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV, 10 MV FFF, and 15 MV (which was not used for IMRT/VMAT). We matched their dosimetric parameters during the commissioning process and configured only one machine in the treatment planning system (TPS). The data obtained with the TPS served as the reference for all subsequent quality control tests. We considered five representative locations treated with VMAT in these accelerators, either involving a high number of patients or stereotactic techniques: head and neck (6 MV), prostate (10 MV), gynaecological (10 MV), hypofractionated stereotactic brain treatments (6 MV), and lung SBRT (6 FFF MV). We selected five patients for each location, and performed PSQA measurements using an ArcCHECK device with an embedded PTW pin-point 3D