MENU

Click here to

×

Are you sure ?

Yes, do it No, cancel

A Graphical User Interface of Pylinac Library

E Garrigo1*, E Aon1, C Descamps1, E Falco1, D Franco1, R Sansogne2, S Arbiser3, (1) Centro Medico Dean Funes, Cordoba, AR, (2) Ceditrin, Buenos Aires, AR, (3) Vidt, Buenos Aires, AR,

Presentations

(Sunday, 7/12/2020)   [Eastern Time (GMT-4)]

Room: AAPM ePoster Library

Purpose:
Despite the wide availability of technology throughout the world, in developing countries it is hard to access to integral QA systems. The community of open source code, and Linacs integrating image system, lead to a group of developers to create the Pylinac Library. This work aims to present a graphical user interface (GUI) as a QA tool based on linac images

Methods:
A Python GUI was developed to perform quick and easy QA of linacs. Pylinac Library includes Calibration, Starshot, VMAT, Catphan, Log-analyzer, Picket-Fence, Winston-Lutz, Planar imaging, and Flatness/Symmetry QA modules. In this first version we implemented VMAT, Catphan, Picket-Fence, Winston-Lutz, and Planar imaging modules. We checked the result against PIPSPRO (Standard Imaging), Portal Dosimetry and spreadsheets (VARIAN). We evaluated each module with a set of five images each.

Results:
CatPhan showed mean difference of Uniformity of 2.4 HU (-2.3,17.6), HU constancy, -6.5 HU (-45.3,2.3), geometric node spacing -0.05 mm (-0.18,0.25) and slice thickness 0.01 mm (-0.07,0.07). VMAT Test2 showed mean maximum deviation of 1.3% 2.3% and mean average deviation of 0.5% and 1.1% for Pylinac and Varian spreadsheets respectively. Test3 showed mean maximum deviation of 0.5% and 0.9%, mean average deviation of 0.4% 1.4% for Pylinac and Varian spreadsheet respectively. For Winston-Lutz, mean lateral displacement was -0.07mm (-0.05,-0.10), -0.10mm (-0.30,0.20) mean in-out displacement 0.10mm (0.04,0.23), -0.40mm (-0.20,-0.70) a mean up-down displacement of -0.20mm(-0.01,-0.34), 0.13mm (0.00,0.30), system 3D deviation 0.15mm (0.06,0.41) 0.30mm (0.28,0.82), mean maximum distance of 0.94mm (0.71,1.18) 0.73mm (0.6,0.9) for Pylinac and PIPSPRO respectively. Others parameters were evaluated, wich showed differences in absolute value due to differences in formulae or ROIs selected but the results were consistent

Conclusion:
A GUI from Pylinac Library was developed and evaluated, showing a good performance when contrasted against available commercial softwares

Download ePoster [PDF]

Keywords

Not Applicable / None Entered.

Taxonomy

Not Applicable / None Entered.

Contact Email