Results for “Commissioning” — Page 2

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-D-BRC-01: An Automatic Beam Model Commissioning Method for Monte Carlo Simulations in Pencil-Beam Scanning Proton Therapy

Purpose: Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is typically regarded as the most accurate dose calculation method for proton therapy. Yet for real clinical cases, the overall accuracy also depends on that of the MC beam model. Commissioning a beam model to faithfully represent a real beam requires finely tuning a set of model parameters, which could be tedious given the large number of pencil beams to commmission. This abstract reports an automatic beam-model commissioning method for pencil-beam scanning proton therapy via an optimization approach. Methods: We modeled a real pencil beam with energy and spatial spread following Gaussian distributions. Mean energy, and energy and spatial spread are model parameters. To commission against a real beam, we first performed MC simulations to calculate dose distributions of a set of ideal (monoenergetic, zero-size) pencil beams. Dose distribution for a real pencil beam is hence linear superposition of doses for those ideal pencil beams with weights in the Gaussian form. We formulated the commissioning task as an optimization problem, such that the calculated central axis depth dose and lateral profiles at several depths match corresponding measurements. An iterative algorithm combining conjugate gradient method and parameter fitting was employed to solve the optimization problem. We validated our method in simulation studies. Results: We calculated dose distributions for three real pencil beams with nominal energies 83, 147 and 199 MeV using realistic beam parameters. These data were regarded as measurements and used for commission. After commissioning, average difference in energy and beam spread between determined values and ground truth were 4.6% and 0.2%. With the commissioned model, we recomputed dose. Mean dose differences from measurements were 0.64%, 0.20% and 0.25%. Conclusion: The developed automatic MC beam-model commissioning method for pencil-beam scanning proton therapy can determine beam model parameters with satisfactory accuracy.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Building commissioning costs and savings across three decades and 1500 North American buildings

B.V. Building commissioning (Cx) is a process for assuring efficient building operations that can be applied to new construction and existing buildings, resulting in energy and non-energy benefits. Quantifying the benefits of commissioning is challenging, but a 2009 study of 643 commercial buildings provided a solid initial data set to which we added 839 additional buildings for a significantly expanded and updated meta-analysis representing 34.7 million square meters (373 million square feet) of floor area. Since 2009 the commissioning industry has continued to grow, driven by building codes, utility programs, and rising awareness of commissioning benefits. In parallel, building controls have become more sophisticated, and analytics software has emerged to assist with commissioning. We find that delivery mechanism and market segment are key determinants of outcomes, although significant and cost-effective savings are found across the spectrum. Median primary energy savings for Cx projects in existing buildings ranged from 5 percent for those conducted under utility programs, 9 percent for monitoring-based commissioning utility programs (i.e., augmented with submetering and diagnostics), and 14 percent for Cx projects outside of utility programs. Across all project types, median savings ranged from 3 percent for the lodging market segment to 16 percent for public order and safety facilities. Outcomes did not vary significantly by building size or by market segment. Energy savings are rarely estimated for new construction commissioning. We found that the median costs of Cx were lower for the 2018 sample than for the 2009 sample—$\$$2.85 per square meter ($\$$0.26 per square foot) for existing buildings (a 33 percent reduction) and $\$$8.78 per square meter ($\$$0.82 per square foot) for new construction (a reduction of almost 50 percent). The median simple payback time for existing buildings was 1.7 years, with a 25th–75th percentile range of 0.8–3.5 years. Overall, this article summarizes these and other key findings, and discusses how the 2018 data reflects shifts in commissioning practice and outcomes.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-160: Commissioning of a Single-Room Double-Scattering Proton Therapy System

Purpose: To report the detailed commissioning experience for a compact double-scattering Mevion S250 proton therapy system at a University Cancer Center site. Methods: The commissioning of the proton therapy system mainly consisted of ensuring integrity of mechanical and imaging system, beam data collection, and commissioning of a treatment planning system (TPS). First, mechanical alignment and imaging were tested including safety, interlocks, positional accuracy of couch and gantry, image quality, mechanical and imaging isocenter and so on. Second, extensive beam data (outputs, PDDs, and profiles) were collected and analyzed through effective sampling of range (R) and modulation width (M) from 24 beam options. Three different output (cGy/MU) prediction models were also commissioned as primary and secondary MU calculation tool. Third, the Varian Eclipse TPS was commissioned through five sets of data collections (in-water Bragg peak scans, in-air longitudinal fluence scans, in-air lateral profiles, in-air half-beam profiles, and an HU-to-stopping-power conversion curve) and accuracy of TPS calculation was tested using in-water scans and dose measurements with a 2D array detector with block and range compensator. Finally, an anthropomorphic phantom was scanned and heterogeneity effects were tested by inserting radiochromic films in the phantom and PET activation scans for range verification in conjunction with end-to-end test. Results: Beam characteristics agreed well with the vendor specifications; however, minor mismatches in R and M were found in some measurements during the beam data collection. These were reflected into the TPS commissioning such that the TPS could accurately predict the R and M within tolerance levels. The output models had a good agreement with measured outputs (<3% error). The end-to-end test using the film and PET showed reasonably the TPS predicted dose, R and M in heterogeneous medium. Conclusion: The proton therapy system was successfully commissioned and was released for clinical use.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-428: An Optimization-Based Commissioning Tool for Finite Size Pencil Beam Dose Calculations

Purpose: Finite size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithms are commonly used to pre-calculate the beamlet dose distribution for IMRT treatment planning. FSPB commissioning, which usually requires fine tuning of the FSPB kernel parameters, is crucial to the dose calculation accuracy and hence the plan quality. Yet due to the large number of beamlets, FSPB commissioning could be very tedious. This abstract reports an optimization-based FSPB commissioning tool we have developed in MatLab to facilitate the commissioning. Methods: A FSPB dose kernel generally contains two types of parameters: the profile parameters determining the dose kernel shape, and a 2D scaling factors accounting for the longitudinal and off-axis corrections. The former were fitted using the penumbra of a reference broad beam’s dose profile with Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. Since the dose distribution of a broad beam is simply a linear superposition of the dose kernel of each beamlet calculated with the fitted profile parameters and scaled using the scaling factors, these factors could be determined by solving an optimization problem which minimizes the discrepancies between the calculated dose of broad beams and the reference dose. Results: We have commissioned a FSPB algorithm for three linac photon beams (6MV, 15MV and 6MVFFF). Dose of four field sizes (6*6cm2, 10*10cm2, 15*15cm2 and 20*20cm2) were calculated and compared with the reference dose exported from Eclipse TPS system. For depth dose curves, the differences are less than 1% of maximum dose after maximum dose depth for most cases. For lateral dose profiles, the differences are less than 2% of central dose at inner-beam regions. The differences of the output factors are within 1% for all the three beams. Conclusion: We have developed an optimization-based commissioning tool for FSPB algorithms to facilitate the commissioning, providing sufficient accuracy of beamlet dose calculation for IMRT optimization.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-475: An Evaluation of the Overlap Between the Acceptance Testing and Commissioning Processes for Conventional Medical Linear Accelerators

Purpose: This work’s objective is to determine the overlap of processes, in terms of sub-processes and time, between acceptance testing and commissioning of a conventional medical linear accelerator and to evaluate the time saved by consolidating the two processes. Method: A process map for acceptance testing for medical linear accelerators was created from vendor documentation (Varian and Elekta). Using AAPM TG-106 and inhouse commissioning procedures, a process map was created for commissioning of said accelerators. The time to complete each sub-process in each process map was evaluated. Redundancies in the processes were found and the time spent on each were calculated. Results: Mechanical testing significantly overlaps between the two processes - redundant work here amounts to 9.5 hours. Many beam non-scanning dosimetry tests overlap resulting in another 6 hours of overlap. Beam scanning overlaps somewhat - acceptance tests include evaluating PDDs and multiple profiles but for only one field size while commissioning beam scanning includes multiple field sizes and depths of profiles. This overlap results in another 6 hours of rework. Absolute dosimetry, field outputs, and end to end tests are not done at all in acceptance testing. Finally, all imaging tests done in acceptance are repeated in commissioning, resulting in about 8 hours of rework. The total time overlap between the two processes is about 30 hours. Conclusion: The process mapping done in this study shows that there are no tests done in acceptance testing that are not also recommended to do for commissioning. This results in about 30 hours of redundant work when preparing a conventional linear accelerator for clinical use. Considering these findings in the context of the 5000 linacs in the United states, consolidating acceptance testing and commissioning would have allowed for the treatment of an additional 25000 patients using no additional resources.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

Procedures and Standards for Residential Ventilation System Commissioning: An Annotated Bibliography

Beginning with the 2008 version of Title 24, new homes in California must comply with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2007 requirements for residential ventilation. Where installed, the limited data available indicate that mechanical ventilation systems do not always perform optimally or even as many codes and forecasts predict. Commissioning such systems when they are installed or during subsequent building retrofits is a step towards eliminating deficiencies and optimizing the tradeoff between energy use and acceptable IAQ. Work funded by the California Energy Commission about a decade ago at Berkeley Lab documented procedures for residential commissioning, but did not focus on ventilation systems. Since then, standards and approaches for commissioning ventilation systems have been an active area of work in Europe. This report describes our efforts to collect new literature on commissioning procedures and to identify information that can be used to support the future development of residential-ventilation-specific procedures and standards. We recommend that a standardized commissioning process and a commissioning guide for practitioners be developed, along with a combined energy and IAQ benefit assessment standard and tool, and a diagnostic guide for estimating continuous pollutant emission rates of concern in residences (including a database that lists emission test data for commercially-available labeled products).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2018

Cold Commissioning Simulant Selection for the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Plant LAW Facility - 18465

Commissioning the Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility of the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) will require large volumes (∼2,000,000 liters) of a non-radioactive, chemically analogous waste simulant. Cold commissioning will provide for operator training in an integrated facility, demonstration of mechanical process equipment capacity, environmental performance demonstration of emissions control systems, and process control systems shakedown and tuning. Selection of the cold commissioning simulant is following a structured four-phase process to arrive at the preferred composition and recipe. Phases I, II and III are complete. Phase I laid the framework for decision making with preparation of a Project Management Plan, an update to the Simulant Development, Approval, Validation, and Documentation procedure, and a kickoff meeting to gather stakeholder input into the simulant definition and selection criteria. Phase II consisted of a comprehensive literature search and compilation of LAW simulant recipes, followed by initial screening against the selection criteria identified in Phase I. This process identified 72 candidate simulant recipes and down-selected 9 for further study. Phase III studies involved a) statistical comparisons of the similarity of candidate simulant compositions to the tank waste feed vector, b) process modelling of the commissioning sequence with each simulant to estimate glass former and simulant material consumption, offgas and effluent volumes and compositions, and product glass volumes and compositions, and c) evaluation of simulants against the immobilized LAW glass composition algorithm to determine allo able waste loading to ensure compliance with product specifications and process constraints. The results of these studies identified two of the candidate recipes to be carried forward to full-scale testing. Phase IV consists of testing these two recipes at vendor facilities to determine scalability, fabricability, and stability of the simulants when produced at industrial scale. Scalability is the ability to take a recipe from bench scale (1 to 40 liters) batch size to full scale (>35,000 liters) batch size. Fabricability is the ability of a recipe to be prepared in large batches without the need for complex or expensive mechanical equipment, heating, or cooling systems. Stability is the ability of a simulant to withstand long term storage and variations in environmental conditions without unacceptable changes in key characteristics (the set of chemical, physical, and rheological parameters that the simulant is intended to exhibit during cold commissioning tests). Simulants will also be tested for compatibility with other startup material (i.e., frit), tuning simulants, and environmental performance demonstration test spiking solutions to ensure against unexpected situations. Using a structured process is essential when making high impact decisions such as waste simulant selection. Proper planning and a clear explanation of how the decision process will unfold is key to obtaining stakeholder buy-in as more information is gathered. The documentation resulting from this structured selection process will be compiled and summarized in a Cold Commissioning Simulant Definition deliverable due to the Department of Energy 24 months before the start of Cold Commissioning. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2013

Commissioning of the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator: A multi-institutional study

Purpose: Latest generation linear accelerators (linacs), i.e., TrueBeam (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) and its stereotactic counterpart, TrueBeam STx, have several unique features, including high-dose-rate flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon modes, reengineered electron modes with new scattering foil geometries, updated imaging hardware/software, and a novel control system. An evaluation of five TrueBeam linacs at three different institutions has been performed and this work reports on the commissioning experience. Methods: Acceptance and commissioning data were analyzed for five TrueBeam linacs equipped with 120 leaf (5 mm width) MLCs at three different institutions. Dosimetric data and mechanical parameters were compared. These included measurements of photon beam profiles (6X, 6XFFF, 10X, 10XFFF, 15X), photon and electron percent depth dose (PDD) curves (6, 9, 12 MeV), relative photon output factors (Scp), electron cone factors, mechanical isocenter accuracy, MLC transmission, and dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). End-to-end testing and IMRT commissioning were also conducted. Results: Gantry/collimator isocentricity measurements were similar (0.27-0.28 mm), with overall couch/gantry/collimator values of 0.46-0.68 mm across the three institutions. Dosimetric data showed good agreement between machines. The average MLC DLGs for 6, 10, and 15 MV photons were 1.33 {+-} 0.23, 1.57 {+-} 0.24, and 1.61 {+-} 0.26 mm, respectively. 6XFFF and 10XFFF modes had average DLGs of 1.16 {+-} 0.22 and 1.44 {+-} 0.30 mm, respectively. MLC transmission showed minimal variation across the three institutions, with the standard deviation <0.2% for all linacs. Photon and electron PDDs were comparable for all energies. 6, 10, and 15 MV photon beam quality, %dd(10){sub x} varied less than 0.3% for all linacs. Output factors (Scp) and electron cone factors agreed within 0.27%, on average; largest variations were observed for small field sizes (1.2% coefficient of variation, 10 MV, 2 Multiplication-Sign 2 cm{sup 2}) and small cone sizes (<1% coefficient of variation, 6 Multiplication-Sign 6 cm{sup 2} cone), respectively. Conclusions: Overall, excellent agreement was observed in TrueBeam commissioning data. This set of multi-institutional data can provide comparison data to others embarking on TrueBeam commissioning, ultimately improving the safety and quality of beam commissioning.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-190: Commissioning An Elekta VersaHD Linear Accelerator

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to report the dosimetric aspects of commissioning performed on an Elekta VersaHD linear accelerator with high dose rate flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon modes and electron modes. Methods: Acceptance and commissioning was performed on an Elekta VersaHD linac with 5 photon energies (6MV, 10MV, 18MV, 6FFF, 10FFF), 4 electron energies (6MeV, 9MeV, 12MeV, 15MeV) and 160 leaf (5mm wide) multi-leaf collimators (MLCs). Mechanical and dosimetric data was measured and evaluated. The measurements include percent depth doses (PDDs), inplane and crossplane profiles, head scatter factor (Sc), relative photon output factors (Scp), universal wedge transmission factor, MLC transmission factors, and electron cone factors. Results: Gantry, collimator, couch isocentricity measurements were within 1mm, 0.7mm and 0.7mm diameter respectively. The PDDs of 6FFF and 10FFF beams show deeper dmax and steeper fall-off with depth than the corresponding flattened beams. While flatness values of 6FFF and 10FFF normalized profiles were higher than the corresponding flattened beams, the symmetry values were almost identical. The crossplane penumbra values were higher than the inplane penumbra values for all the energies. The MLC transmission values were 0.5%, 0.6% and 0.6% for 6MV, 10MV, and 18MV photon beams. The electron PDDs, profiles and cone factors is validated by literature. Conclusion: The outcome of radiation treatment is directly related to the accuracy in the dose modeled in the treatment planning system which is based on the commissioned data. Commissioning data provided us a valuable insight into the dosimetric characteristics of the beam. This set of commissioning data can provide comparison data to others performing VersaHD commissioning thus improving patient safety.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2013

The Time Needed to Implement the Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendation on Interim Storage - 13124

The report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future [1] makes a number of important recommendations to be considered if Congress elects to redirect U.S. high-level radioactive waste disposal policy. Setting aside for the purposes of this discussion any issues related to political forces leading to stopping progress on the Yucca Mountain project and driving the creation of the Commission, an important recommendation of the Commission was to institute prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities. The Blue Ribbon Commission noted that this recommended strategy for future storage and disposal facilities and operations should be implemented regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain. It is too easy, however, to focus on interim storage as an alternative to geologic disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission report does not go far enough in addressing the magnitude of the contentious problems associated with reopening the issues of relative authorities of the states and federal government with which Congress wrestled in crafting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [2]. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation for prompt adoption of an interim storage program does not appear to be fully informed about the actions that must be taken, the relative cost of the effort, or the realistic time line that would be involved. In essence, the recommendation leaves to others the details of the systems engineering analyses needed to understand the nature and details of all the operations required to reach an operational interim storage facility without derailing forever the true end goal of geologic disposal. The material presented identifies a number of impediments that must be overcome before the country could develop a centralized federal interim storage facility. In summary, and in the order presented, they are: 1. Change the law, HJR 87, PL 107-200, designating Yucca Mountain for the development of a repository. 2. Bring new nuclear waste legislation to the floor of the Senate, overcoming existing House support for Yucca Mountain; 3. Change the longstanding focus of Congress from disposal to storage; 4. Change the funding concepts embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the Nuclear Waste fund to be used to pay for interim storage; 5. Reverse the Congressional policy not to give states or tribes veto or consent authority, and to reserve to Congress the authority to override a state or tribal disapproval; 6. Promulgate interim storage facility siting regulations to reflect the new policies after such changes to policy and law; 7. Complete already underway changes to storage and transportation regulations, possibly incorporating changes to reflect changes to waste disposal law; 8. Promulgate new repository siting regulations if the interim storage facility is to support repository development; 9. Identify volunteer sites, negotiate agreements, and get Congressional approval for negotiated benefits packages; 10. Design, License and develop the interim storage facility. The time required to accomplish these ten items depends on many factors. The estimate developed assumes that certain of the items must be completed before other items are started; given past criticisms of the current program, such an assumption appears appropriate. Estimated times for completion of individual items are based on historical precedent. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2013

Commissioning of intensity modulated neutron radiotherapy (IMNRT)

Purpose: Intensity modulated neutron radiotherapy (IMNRT) has been developed using inhouse treatment planning and delivery systems at the Karmanos Cancer Center/Wayne State University Fast Neutron Therapy facility. The process of commissioning IMNRT for clinical use is presented here. Results of commissioning tests are provided including validation measurements using representative patient plans as well as those from the TG-119 test suite. Methods: IMNRT plans were created using the Varian Eclipse optimization algorithm and an inhouse planning system for calculation of neutron dose distributions. Tissue equivalent ionization chambers and an ionization chamber array were used for point dose and planar dose distribution comparisons with calculated values. Validation plans were delivered to water and virtual water phantoms using TG-119 measurement points and evaluation techniques. Photon and neutron doses were evaluated both inside and outside the target volume for a typical IMNRT plan to determine effects of intensity modulation on the photon dose component. Monitor unit linearity and effects of beam current and gantry angle on output were investigated, and an independent validation of neutron dosimetry was obtained. Results: While IMNRT plan quality is superior to conventional fast neutron therapy plans for clinical sites such as prostate and head and neck, it is inferior to photon IMRT for most TG-119 planning goals, particularly for complex cases. This results significantly from current limitations on the number of segments. Measured and calculated doses for 11 representative plans (six prostate/five head and neck) agreed to within -0.8 {+-} 1.4% and 5.0 {+-} 6.0% within and outside the target, respectively. Nearly all (22/24) ion chamber point measurements in the two phantom arrangements were within the respective confidence intervals for the quantity [(measured-planned)/prescription dose] derived in TG-119. Mean differences for all measurements were 0.5% (max = 7.0%) and 1.4% (max = 4.1%) in water and virtual water, respectively. The mean gamma pass rate for all cases was 92.8% (min = 88.6%). These pass rates are lower than typically achieved with photon IMRT, warranting development of a planar dosimetry system designed specifically for IMNRT and/or the improvement of neutron beam modeling in the penumbral region. The fractional photon dose component did not change significantly in a typical IMNRT plan versus a conventional fast neutron therapy plan, and IMNRT delivery is not expected to significantly alter the RBE. All other commissioning results were considered satisfactory for clinical implementation of IMNRT, including the external neutron dose validation, which agreed with the predicted neutron dose to within 1%. Conclusions: IMNRT has been successfully commissioned for clinical use. While current plan quality is inferior to photon IMRT, it is superior to conventional fast neutron therapy. Ion chamber validation results for IMNRT commissioning are also comparable to those typically achieved with photon IMRT. Gamma pass rates for planar dose distributions are lower than typically observed for photon IMRT but may be improved with improved planar dosimetry equipment and beam modeling techniques. In the meantime, patient-specific quality assurance measurements should rely more heavily on point dose measurements with tissue equivalent ionization chambers. No significant technical impediments are anticipated in the clinical implementation of IMNRT as described here.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2014

SU-E-T-577: Commissioning of a Deterministic Algorithm for External Photon Beams

Purpose: We report commissioning results for a deterministic algorithm for external photon beam treatment planning. A deterministic algorithm solves the radiation transport equations directly using a finite difference method, thus improve the accuracy of dose calculation, particularly under heterogeneous conditions with results similar to that of Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. Methods: Commissioning data for photon energies 6 – 15 MV includes the percentage depth dose (PDD) measured at SSD = 90 cm and output ratio in water (Spc), both normalized to 10 cm depth, for field sizes between 2 and 40 cm and depths between 0 and 40 cm. Off-axis ratio (OAR) for the same set of field sizes was used at 5 depths (dmax, 5, 10, 20, 30 cm). The final model was compared with the commissioning data as well as additional benchmark data. The benchmark data includes dose per MU determined for 17 points for SSD between 80 and 110 cm, depth between 5 and 20 cm, and lateral offset of up to 16.5 cm. Relative comparisons were made in a heterogeneous phantom made of cork and solid water. Results: Compared to the commissioning beam data, the agreement are generally better than 2% with large errors (up to 13%) observed in the buildup regions of the FDD and penumbra regions of the OAR profiles. The overall mean standard deviation is 0.04% when all data are taken into account. Compared to the benchmark data, the agreements are generally better than 2%. Relative comparison in heterogeneous phantom is in general better than 4%. Conclusion: A commercial deterministic algorithm was commissioned for megavoltage photon beams. In a homogeneous medium, the agreement between the algorithm and measurement at the benchmark points is generally better than 2%. The dose accuracy for a deterministic algorithm is better than a convolution algorithm in heterogeneous medium.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-186: Cloud-Based Quality Assurance Application for Linear Accelerator Commissioning

Purpose: To identify anomalies and safety issues during data collection and modeling for treatment planning systems Methods: A cloud-based quality assurance system (AQUIRE - Automated QUalIty REassurance) has been developed to allow the uploading and analysis of beam data aquired during the treatment planning system commissioning process. In addition to comparing and aggregating measured data, tools have also been developed to extract dose from the treatment planning system for end-to-end testing. A gamma index is perfomed on the data to give a dose difference and distance-to-agreement for validation that a beam model is generating plans consistent with the beam data collection. Results: Over 20 linear accelerators have been commissioning using this platform, and a variety of errors and potential saftey issues have been caught through the validation process. For example, the gamma index of 2% dose, 2mm DTA is quite sufficient to see curves not corrected for effective point of measurement. Also, data imported into the database is analyzed against an aggregate of similar linear accelerators to show data points that are outliers. The resulting curves in the database exhibit a very small standard deviation and imply that a preconfigured beam model based on aggregated linear accelerators will be sufficient in most cases. Conclusion: With the use of this new platform for beam data commissioning, errors in beam data collection and treatment planning system modeling are greatly reduced. With the reduction in errors during acquisition, the resulting beam models are quite similar, suggesting that a common beam model may be possible in the future. Development is ongoing to create routine quality assurance tools to compare back to the beam data acquired during commissioning. I am a medical physicist for Alzyen Medical Physics, and perform commissioning services.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

TU-AB-BRC-11: Moving a GPU-OpenCL-Based Monte Carlo (MC) Dose Engine Towards Routine Clinical Use: Automatic Beam Commissioning and Efficient Source Sampling

Purpose: We have previously developed a GPU-OpenCL-based MC dose engine named goMC with built-in analytical linac beam model. To move goMC towards routine clinical use, we have developed an automatic beam-commissioning method, and an efficient source sampling strategy to facilitate dose calculations for real treatment plans. Methods: Our commissioning method is to automatically adjust the relative weights among the sub-sources, through an optimization process minimizing the discrepancies between calculated dose and measurements. Six models built for Varian Truebeam linac photon beams (6MV, 10MV, 15MV, 18MV, 6MVFFF, 10MVFFF) were commissioned using measurement data acquired at our institution. To facilitate dose calculations for real treatment plans, we employed inverse sampling method to efficiently incorporate MLC leaf-sequencing into source sampling. Specifically, instead of sampling source particles control-point by control-point and rejecting the particles blocked by MLC, we assigned a control-point index to each sampled source particle, according to MLC leaf-open duration of each control-point at the pixel where the particle intersects the iso-center plane. Results: Our auto-commissioning method decreased distance-to-agreement (DTA) of depth dose at build-up regions by 36.2% averagely, making it within 1mm. Lateral profiles were better matched for all beams, with biggest improvement found at 15MV for which root-mean-square difference was reduced from 1.44% to 0.50%. Maximum differences of output factors were reduced to less than 0.7% for all beams, with largest decrease being from1.70% to 0.37% found at 10FFF. Our new sampling strategy was tested on a Head&Neck VMAT patient case. Achieving clinically acceptable accuracy, the new strategy could reduce the required history number by a factor of ∼2.8 given a statistical uncertainty level and hence achieve a similar speed-up factor. Conclusion: Our studies have demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of our auto-commissioning approach and new efficient source sampling strategy, implying the potential of our GPU-based MC dose engine goMC for routine clinical use.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Maximizing Efficiency and Quality: Leveraging Automated Testing for Laboratory Commissioning

The traditional commissioning process for a building often implements sampling rates to select equipment for functional acceptance testing when large quantities of equipment are present. While this approach is generally effective in identifying wide-spread issues, it has several key shortfalls. (1) It provides a one-time validation of equipment operation in which the standard documentation is a simple checklist of pass/fail questions. (2) It fails to evaluate equipment not included in the sample rate selection. During the construction and commissioning process of the new Research and Innovation Laboratory (RAIL) in Golden, CO, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory team engaged Group14 Engineering to implement a Connected Commissioning process using fault detection and diagnostic software for automated functional acceptance testing. The goal of this presentation will be to highlight the advantages offered by automated functional testing in this critical laboratory setting. These are primarily (1) sampling 100% of BAS-connected equipment during functional testing, (2) testing results backed by data beyond the traditional pass/fail checklist, and (3) an automated test process that can be regularly executed by the building management team for ongoing commissioning throughout the life of the building. The presentation will also cover technical challenges associated with connected commissioning and the important conversations with the key stakeholders that need to occur well before functional acceptance testing in order to successfully implement the automated testing processes.

automated testing↗