Evaluation of ThinkQA (v2.0.1.11) as an online secondary dose check for MR guided radiation therapy with the Elekta Unity MR-Linac
- PMID: 41553626
- DOI: 10.1007/s13246-025-01693-0
Evaluation of ThinkQA (v2.0.1.11) as an online secondary dose check for MR guided radiation therapy with the Elekta Unity MR-Linac
Abstract
To evaluate ThinkQA (TQA), a collapsed cone convolution-based secondary dose check, as an alternative to MU2net (Clarkson-based, point-dose) for online adaptive planning on the Elekta Unity 1.5 T MR-Linac at Townsville University Hospital. Commissioning followed MPPG 5.b tests. The reference-dose agreement, magnetic-field modelling, directional dependence, output factors, off-axis points, heterogeneous slab geometries and calculation properties were assessed. Nine step-and-shoot IMRT plans (courtesy of Elekta) and 226 retrospectively analysed adapted fractions (prostate and pelvic nodes; planning target volumes 1.9-170.0 cm3) were compared between TQA and Monaco by gamma analysis (global 10.0% threshold; 2.0%/2.0 mm, 3.0%/2.0 mm). At 10.0 cm depth under TQA reference conditions, the mean absolute point-dose difference versus Monaco was 0.4%. TQA reproduced models the magnetic-field-induced cross-plane asymmetry with close agreement to Monaco. Directional dependence differences were ≤ ± 1.2% except when traversing the couch (± 1.8%). Output factors agreed within ≤ 1.0% (SSD 133.5 cm) and ≤ 2.0% (SSD 138.5 cm). In 226 clinical fractions, 3.0%/2.0 mm (global) yielded 93.0% passes in the high-dose region and 100.0% in other regions; 2.0%/2.0 mm yielded 25% high-dose passes. TQA results were available within about 1 min post Monaco export. TQA provides accurate, rapid, volumetric secondary dose verification for Unity, improves agreement with Monaco, and reduces console time by eliminating dose point re-selection. A 3.0%/2.0 mm global gamma criterion is a clinical acceptance level, with tighter criteria reserved for targeted investigations.
Keywords: Adaptive planning; MR-Linac; Radiotherapy; Secondary dose calculation.
© 2026. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict interest. Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Therefore, no ethics approval was required (THHSAudit 202512-899).
References
-
- Lagendijk JJW, Raaymakers BW, van Vulpen M (2014) The magnetic resonance imaging-linac system. Semin Radiat Oncol 24(3):207–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2014.02.009 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Winkel D et al (2019) Adaptive radiotherapy: the Elekta Unity MR-linac concept. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 18:54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctro.2019.04.001 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Bertelsen AS et al (2019) First clinical experiences with a high field 1.5 T MR linac. Acta Oncol 58(10):1352–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2019.1627417 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Cerviño LI, Du J, Jiang SB (2011) MRI-guided tumor tracking in lung cancer radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 56(13):3773–3785. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/13/003 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Wang J, Yung J, Kadbi M, Hwang K, Ding Y, Ibbott GS (2018) Assessment of image quality and scatter and leakage radiation of an integrated MR-LINAC system. Med Phys 45(3):1204–1209. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12767 - DOI - PubMed