Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 25, Number 3, 2020

Comparison of three different phantoms used for Winston-Lutz test with Artiscan software

Hubert Szweda, Kinga Graczyk, Dawid Radomiak, Krzysztof Matuszewski, Bartosz Pawałowski

Summary:

Background One of the most important test in every quality assurances process of medical linear accelerators is the Winston-Lutz test, allowing an evaluation of the treatment isocentre in the light of uncertainty of the position of the collimator, the gantry and the couch. Aim The purpose of this work was analysis of the results of the Winston-Lutz test performed with three different phantoms for two different accelerators. Materials and methods Measurements were performed on two Varian machines: TrueBeam equipped with aS1200 EPID and TrueBeam equipped with aS1000 EPID. During the study three different phantoms dedicated for verification of the radiation isocentre were used: PTW Isoball, AQUILAB Isocentre Phantom and Varian Isocentre Cube. Analysis of the DICOM images was performed in Artiscan software. Results For TrueBeam with as1200 EPID, gantry MV isocentre was about 0.18 mm larger for Varian Isocentre Cube than for two other phantoms used in this study. The largest variability of this parameter was observed for the couch. The results differed to 1.16 mm. For TrueBeam with as1000 EPID, results for collimator isocentre with PTW Isoball phantom were about 0.10 mm larger than for two other phantoms. For the gantry, results obtained with Varian Isocentre Cube were 0.21 mm larger. Conclusion The obtained results for all three phantoms are within the accepted tolerance range. The largest differences were observed for treatment couch, which may be related to the phantom mobility during couch movement.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2020; 25(3) : 351-354


« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2