Evaluation of the truebeam machine performance check (MPC): OBI X‐ray tube alignment procedure

• Published in: Journal of applied clinical medical physics Vol. 19; no. 6; pp. 68 - 78
• Main Authors: Barnes, Michael P., Pomare, Dennis, Menk, Frederick W., Moraro, Buiron, Greer, Peter B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.11.2018
• Subjects: Accuracy; Calibration; Equipment Design; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; linac quality assurance; machine performance check (MPC); Medical imaging; Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Particle Accelerators - instrumentation; Particle Accelerators - standards; Phantoms, Imaging; Quality Assurance, Health Care - standards; Quality control; Radiation therapy; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated - methods; Sensors; Software; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods; X-Rays; linac quality assurance; machine performance check (MPC)
• ISSN: 1526-9914; 1526-9914
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12445

Alignment of the On‐Board Imager (OBI) X‐ray tube is important for ensuring imaging to treatment isocenter coincidence, which in turn is important for accurate Image Guided Radiotherapy (IGRT). Varian introduced a new X‐ray tube alignment procedure for the TrueBeam linac in software version 2.5 MR2 as part of the machine performance check (MPC) application. This study evaluated the new procedure against conventional methods and examined the clinical significance of X‐ray tube misalignment. Long term stability and short term repeatability of MPC tube alignment was assessed as well as sensitivity of the method to setup error. Standard quality assurance tests expected to be sensitive to tube misalignment were performed before and after tube alignment. These tests included: IsoCal verification; MPC kV imager offset; Winston‐Lutz: kV imaging to treatment/radiation isocenter coincidence; CBCT image QA using the Catphan phantom; and OBI image geometric accuracy and center pixel alignment. Tube alignment measurements were performed with MPC, the two‐plate method, and wire‐on‐faceplate method. The X‐ray tube was then realigned by approximately 1.01 mm in the tangential plane based upon MPC and the tube alignment and standard quality assurance measurements were repeated. The time taken for each tube alignment method was estimated. The MPC method of tube alignment was found to be repeatable, insignificantly sensitive to phantom setup error and quick and simple to perform. The standard QA tests were generally insensitive to the tube alignment change, possibly because of the IsoCal correction. However, reduction in the magnitude of IsoCal correction and MPC kV imager offset was recorded after tube alignment. There was also apparent improvement in CBCT image uniformity. The MPC procedure is recommended for X‐ray tube alignment.