Abstract
In a mixed-vendor radiation oncology environment, it is advantageous if the department's treatment planning system (TPS) supports the linear accelerators of different vendors. In this publication beam data collection and modeling for the Versa HD linear accelerator in Monaco, Pinnacle, and Eclipse are discussed. In each TPS static field, Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) step and shoot, and Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) plans for flattened and flattening-filter free photon beams of all available energies were evaluated for field sizes >3 × 3. To compare passing rates, identical beam model validation plans were calculated in each TPS. Eclipse, Monaco, and Pinnacle beam models passed validation measurements in homogeneous materials for a variety of treatment fields, including static, IMRT, and VMAT. In the case of Eclipse, the "dosimetric leaf gap" parameter was found to be critical for passing rates of VMAT plans. The source size parameter plays an important role as well for small fields. In the case of Pinnacle the multileaf collimator offset table needed to be optimized for better VMAT QA results. Each of the investigated treatment planning systems met the criteria to be used clinically in conjunction with Elekta Versa HD linear accelerators. It can be of great advantage to have the option to operate a TPS and linear accelerator from different vendors, as decisions surrounding linear accelerator or TPS purchases are very complicated and not just limited to technical considerations.