Generalized monitor unit calculation for the Varian enhanced dynamic wedge field

The generalized monitor unit (MU) calculation equation for the Varian enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) is derived. The assumption of this MU calculation method is that the wedge factor of the EDW at the center of the field is a function of field size, the position of the center of the field in the wedge direction, and the final position of the moving jaw. The wedge factors at the center of the field in both symmetric and asymmetric fields are examined. The difference between calculated and measured wedge factors is within 1.0%. The method developed here is easy to implement. The only datum required in addition to the standard set of conventional physical wedge implementation data is the off-axis output factor for the open field in the reference condition. The off-center point calculation is also examined. For the off-center point calculation, the dose profile in the wedge direction for the largest EDW field is used to obtain the relative off-center ratio in any smaller wedge field. The accuracy of the off-center point calculation decreases when the point of calculation is too close to the field edge.     

Verification of treatment parameter transfer by means of electronic portal dosimetry

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) are mainly used for patient setup verification during treatment but other geometric properties like block shape and leaf positions are also determined. Electronic portal dosimetry allows dosimetric treatment verification. By combining geometric and dosimetric information, the data transfer between treatment planning system (TPS) and linear accelerator can be verified which in particular is important when this transfer is not carried out electronically. We have developed a pretreatment verification procedure of geometric and dosimetric treatment parameters of a 10 MV photon beam using an EPID. Measurements were performed with a CCD camera-based iView EPID, calibrated to convert a greyscale EPID image into a two-dimensional absolute dose distribution. Central field dose calculations, independent of the TPS, are made to predict dose values at a focus-EPID distance of 157.5 cm. In the same EPID image, the presence of a wedge, its direction, and the field size defined by the collimating jaws were determined. The accuracy of the procedure was determined for open and wedged fields for various field sizes. Ionization chamber measurements were performed to determine the accuracy of the dose values measured with the EPID and calculated by the central field dose calculation. The mean difference between ionization chamber and EPID dose at the center of the fields was 0.8 +/- 1.2% (1 s.d.). Deviations larger than 2.5% were found for half fields and fields with a jaw in overtravel. The mean difference between ionization chamber results and the independent dose calculation was -0.21 +/- 0.6% (1 s.d.). For all wedged fields, the presence of the wedge was detected and the mean difference in actual and measured wedge direction was 0 +/- 3 degrees (1 s.d.). The mean field size differences in X and Y directions were 0.1 +/- 0.1 cm and 0.0 +/- 0.1 cm (1 s.d.), respectively. Pretreatment monitor unit verification is possible with high accuracy and also geometric parameters can be verified using the same EPID image.     

Beam characteristics of upper and lower physical wedge systems of Varian accelerators

The beam characteristics of a dual physical wedge system, upper and lower, for Varian accelerators are studied over the energy range 6-18 MV. Wedge factors for both systems are measured in a water phantom as a function of field size, depth and source-to-wedge (SWD) distance. Our results indicate that apart from their physical differences, dosimetrically, the two wedge systems have <2% difference in central axis percentage depth dose beyond the build-up region. The lower wedge central axis percentage depth dose is consistently lower than that of the corresponding upper wedge, with the effect more pronounced for large field sizes. The wedge profiles are identical within 2% for all field sizes, depths and energies. The wedge factors for both wedge systems are also within 2% for all field sizes and depths for both 6 and 15 MV photons and slightly higher for the 18 MV beam and 45 degrees-60 degrees wedge angle. The wedge factor variation with SWD reveals an interesting fact that thinner wedges (15 degrees and 30 degrees) result in a higher surface dose in the central axis region than thicker wedges. As the SWD increases beyond 80 cm, the reverse is true, i.e. thicker wedges produce higher surface dose than thinner wedges. It is also verified that the wedge factor at any depth and for any field size can be calculated from the wedged and open field central axis percentage depth dose, and the wedge factor at dmax, resulting in nearly 44% reduction in water phantom scanning and 80% reduction in point measurements during commissioning.     

Modeling the extrafocal radiation and monitor chamber backscatter for photon beam dose calculation

A simple analytical approach has been developed to model extrafocal radiation and monitor chamber backscatter for clinical photon beams. Model parameters for both the extrafocal source and monitor chamber backscatter are determined simultaneously using conventional measured data, i.e., in-air output factors for square and rectangular fields defined by the photon jaws. The model has been applied to 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams produced by a Varian Clinac 2300C/D accelerator. Contributions to the in-air output factor from the extrafocal radiation and monitor chamber backscatter, as predicted by the model, are in good agreement with the measurements. The model can be used to calculate the in-air output factors analytically, with an accuracy of 0.2% for symmetric or asymmetric rectangular fields defined by jaws when the calculation point is at the isocenter and 0.5% when the calculation point is at an extended SSD. For MLC-defined fields, with the jaws at the recommended positions, calculated in-air output factors agree with the measured data to within 0.3% at the isocenter and 0.7% at off-axis positions. The model has been incorporated into a Monte Carlo dose algorithm to calculate the absolute dose distributions in patients or phantoms. For three MLC-defined irregular fields (triangle shape, C-shape, and L-shape), the calculations agree with the measurements to about 1% even for points at off-axis positions. The model will be particularly useful for IMRT dose calculations because it accurately predicts beam output and penumbra dose.     

6MV-15MV下物理楔形因子和动态楔形因子的比较

目的:探讨不同能量下,Varian21EX直线加速器中物理楔形因子和动态楔形因子受照射野大小和深度的影响。方法:在固体水膜体中利用0.6 cc电离室对6 MV和15 MV射线束下不同角度物理楔形板和动态楔形板分别测量加和不加楔形滤片时的剂量率来计算楔形因子。通过测量不同角度的物理楔形板和动态楔形板在固定照射野(10 cm×10 cm)的不同深度下的楔形因子来研究楔形因子随深度的变化规律。同时,对于楔形因子随射野大小的变化规律,还测量了不同角度的物理楔形板和动态楔形板在固定深度(d=10 cm)下的不同射野大小的楔形因子。为了更好地分析物理楔形因子与动态楔形因子的差异,引入了相对楔形因子NWF。结果:深度对于物理楔形板的楔形因子较为明显,深度增加时楔形因子增大,且随着楔形角的增大变化更明显。对于150、300、450、600的物理楔形板,当深度由最大深度增加到20 cm时对于6 MV能量楔形因子分别增加了1.86%、3.79%、4.99%、7.95%;对于15 MV能量1.29%、1.35%、1.49%、2.03%。而动态楔形因子随深度变化不明显,最大变化不到1%。射野大小对于物理楔形因子也有一定的影响,楔形因子随射野增加而增加,但是增加幅度不大;而对于动态楔形板,在6 MV和15 MV射线束下楔形因子受射野的增大都有明显的减小。对于100、150、200、250、300、450、600的动态楔形板,从参考射野(10 cm×10 cm)到最大射野,楔形因子分别减少了7.91%、11.04%、14.08%、16.96%、19.7%、28.03%、35.89%对于6 MV和5.72%、8.17%、10.41%、12.85%、15.08%、21.82%、30.59%对于15 MV能量。结论:对于物理楔形板,深度和射野大小都对物理楔形因子有影响,所以临床剂量计算时必须考虑深度和射野大小对物理楔形因子的影响并对它进行修正。对于动态楔形板,深度对动态楔形因子影响较小,在临床剂量计算时可以忽略;而射野大小对动态楔形因子影响比较明显,在临床剂量计算时只须考虑相对射野楔形因子。     

Photonuclear dose calculations for high-energy photon beams from Siemens and Varian linacs

The dose from photon-induced nuclear particles (neutrons, protons, and alpha particles) generated by high-energy photon beams from medical linacs is investigated. Monte Carlo calculations using the MCNPX code are performed for three different photon beams from two different machines: Siemens 18 MV, Varian 15 MV, and Varian 18 MV. The linac head components are simulated in detail. The dose distributions from photons, neutrons, protons, and alpha particles are calculated in a tissue-equivalent phantom. Neutrons are generated in both the linac head and the phantom. This study includes (a) field size effects, (b) off-axis dose profiles, (c) neutron contribution from the linac head, (d) dose contribution from capture gamma rays, (e) phantom heterogeneity effects, and (f) effects of primary electron energy shift. Results are presented in terms of absolute dose distributions and also in terms of DER (dose equivalent ratio). The DER is the maximum dose from the particle (neutron, proton, or alpha) divided by the maximum photon dose, multiplied by the particle quality factor and the modulation scaling factor. The total DER including neutrons, protons, and alphas is about 0.66 cSv/Gy for the Siemens 18 MV beam (10 cm x 10 cm). The neutron DER decreases with decreasing field size while the proton (or alpha) DER does not vary significantly except for the 1 cm x 1 cm field. Both Varian beams (15 and 18 MV) produce more neutrons, protons, and alphas particles than the Siemens 18 MV beam. This is mainly due to their higher primary electron energies: 15 and 18.3 MeV, respectively, vs 14 MeV for the Siemens 18 MV beam. For all beams, neutrons contribute more than 75% of the total DER, except for the 1 cm x 1 cm field (approximately 50%). The total DER is 1.52 and 2.86 cSv/Gy for the 15 and 18 MV Varian beams (10 cm x 10 cm), respectively. Media with relatively high-Z elements like bone may increase the dose from heavy charged particles by a factor 4. The total DER is sensitive to primary electron energy shift. A Siemens 18 MV beam with 15 MeV (instead of 14 MeV) primary electrons would increase by 40% the neutron DER and by 210% the proton + alpha DER. Comparisons with measurements (neutron yields from different materials and neutron dose equivalent) are also presented. Using the NCRP risk assessment method, we found that the dose equivalent from leakage neutrons (at 50-cm off-axis distance) represent 1.1, 1.1, and 2.0% likelihood of fatal secondary cancer for a 70 Gy treatment delivered by the Siemens 18 MV, Varian 15 MV, and Varian 18 MV beams, respectively.     

楔形野剂量计算中的误差分析和修正

目的研究楔形野剂量计算中的误差,并探讨解决方法.材料与方法在10MV和6MVX线条件下,用NEFarmer25710.6cc指形电离室和三维水箱在水模中测出平野和楔形野的各种参数,并用二种方法计算剂量,结果与实侧值比较.结果实测数据显示Pdd和Scp在平野和楔形野情况下存在差异.楔形因子因此随深度而变化,变化程度受射线能量、楔形板规格影响.与实测值比较,用传统方法计算楔形野剂量的结果存在误差,误差大小与能量、野面积、深度有关.6MVX线、15×15野、20cm深度处的计算误差可达11%.而用改进的方法进行计算,可将误差控制在1%以内.结论由于忽略了Pdd等物理参数在楔形野条件下的变化,用传统方法计算楔形野剂量存在误差.为保证临床剂量计算的准确性,应在计算公式中加入修正因子.     

动态楔形因子在肿瘤放射治疗临床剂量计算中的应用

目的：动态楔形技术即在加速器治疗时用计算机控制铅门的运动以使X线在所设定的照射野和深度处得到治疗所需要的楔形等剂量线分布,以代替传统的物理楔形板。在1978年,P.K.Kijewski等人[1]提出动态楔形技术（DW）之后,上个世纪90年代,John.P.Gibbons[2]提出了将动态楔形技术应用于临床,并对Varian加速器作了大量的研究。但对于Siemens医用直线加速器报道尚少。方法：本文以Siemens Primus医用直线加速器为研究对象,在水箱中放入0.6 cc电离室并与NE2620型剂量仪相连,分别对6 MV和15 MV光子线在dmax深度处进行测量。通过实验,找出适合Siemens Primus医用直线加速器的动态楔形临床剂量计算公式。结果：在实验过程中,我们发现,按照经验公式所拟合出来的公式与通过与Siemens Primus医用直线加速器的动态楔形因子的计算公式及公式中出现的参量[3]的理论值比较,即文中的公式理论值与实验值的比较,在用于临床时,我们发现,实验拟合出来的公式满足临床要求,误差结果在1%～2%内。结论：对于Siemens Primus加速器,在应用动态楔形技术时,对于对称野在临床剂量计算过程中,可以不考虑EDWF值,即与常规剂量计算一样。     

How accurate is a CT-based dose calculation on a pencil beam TPS for a patient with a metallic prosthesis?

The accuracy of a CT-based dose calculation on a treatment planning system (TPS) for a radiotherapy patient with a metallic prosthesis has not previously been reported. In this study, the accuracy of the CT-based inhomogeneity correction on a pencil beam TPS (Helax TMS) was determined in a phantom containing a metallic prosthesis. A steel prosthesis phantom and a titanium prosthesis phantom were investigated. The phantoms were CT-scanned and dose plans produced on the TPS, using the CT images to provide density information for the inhomogeneity corrections. Verification measurements were performed on a linear accelerator for 6 and 15 MV x-rays. Measured dose profiles at three different depths were compared to the calculations of the TPS. For the titanium prosthesis and for 6 MV x-rays, the TPS overestimated the beam attenuation by approximately 20% at 15 and 20 cm depths in the phantom. This is due to a limitation in the density allocation of this TPS: any Hounsfield number (HN) above a certain threshold is allocated the density of steel. For the steel prosthesis, the TPS performed the correct mapping of HN to mass density. The dose calculation was within 6% for 6 MV x-rays at 15 and 20 cm depths. However. the accuracy of dose calculation varied with beam energy and depth, with large errors in the region close to the prosthesis. The TPS overestimated the dose by 11% for 6 MV and 15% for 15 MV x-rays at 11 cm depth. 2.5 cm beyond the steel prosthesis. These results highlight the limitations in the density allocation of this TPS and demonstrate shortcomings in the pencil beam dose calculation.     

Monitor unit calculation on the beam axis of open and wedged asymmetric high-energy photon beams

An ESTRO booklet and a report of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry have been published recently describing empirical methods for monitor unit (MU) calculations in symmetrical high-energy photon beams. Both documents support the same basic ideas; firstly the separation of head scatter and volume scatter components and secondly the determination of head scatter quantities in a mini-phantom. Based on these ideas the methods previously described for MU calculations in symmetrical beams are extended to asymmetrical open and wedged beams in isocentric treatment conditions. All required dosimetric parameters (normalized head scatter factors, phantom scatter correction factors, wedge factors, off-axis ratios, quality index, and depth dose parameters) are determined as a function of beam axis position in order to study their off-axis dependence. Measurements are performed for 6 MV and 18 MV photon beams provided by two different dual-energy linear accelerators, a GE Saturne 42 and a Varian 2100 CD linac.     

Two-effective-source method for the calculation of in-air output at various source-to-detector distances in wedged fields.

A simple algorithm was developed for calculation of the in-air output at various source-to-detector distances (SDDs) on the central axis for wedged fields. In the algorithm we dealt independently with two effective sources, one for head scatter and the other for wedge scatter. Varian 2100C with 18 and 8 MV photon beams was used to examine this algorithm. The effective source position for head scatter for wedged fields was assumed to be the same as that for open fields, and the effective source position for wedge scatter was assumed to be a certain distance upstream from the physical location of the wedge. The shift of the effective source for wedge scatter, w, was found to be independent of field size. Moreover, we observed no systematic dependency of w on wedge angle or beam energy. One value, w = 5.5 cm, provided less than 1% difference in in-air outputs through the whole experimental range, i.e., 6 x 6 to 20 x 20 cm2 field size (15 x 20 cm2 for 60 degrees wedge), 15 degrees-60 degrees wedge angle, 80-130 cm SDD, and both 18 and 8 MV photon beams. This algorithm can handle the case in which use of a tertiary collimator with an external wedge makes the field size for the determination of wedge scatter different from that for head scatter. In this case, without the two-effective-source method, the maximum of 4.7% and 2.6% difference can be given by the inverse square method and one-effective-source method in a 45 degrees wedged field with 18 MV. Differences can be larger for thicker wedges. Enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) fields were also examined. It was found that no second effective source is required for EDW fields.     

3台医科达加速器束流匹配后互换执行容积旋转调强放射治疗计划的剂量准确性分析

目的:探讨放疗科3台加速器束流匹配后互换执行容积旋转调强放射治疗（VMAT）计划的准确性。方法:随机选取18例头颈部、胸腹部和盆腔部患者,采用Synergy1、Synergy2和VersaHD 3台加速器模型分别制作VMAT放疗计划PlanSynergy1,PlanSynergy1和PlanVersaHD。同一VMAT计划（6 MV X射线）分别在3台加速器执行,采用电离室和Delta4分别测量绝对点剂量误差和相对三维剂量γ通过率（3 mm/3%）。互换执行VMAT计划后,点剂量和相对剂量的测量结果与治疗计划系统（TPS）计算的结果比较,评估3台加速器束流匹配后VMAT计划互换执行的可行性。结果:PlanSynergy1计划分别在Synergy1、Synergy2、VersaHD执行时,测得的点剂量与TPS计算的偏差分别为-0.27%±0.87%、-0.88%±1.74%和0.37%±2.18%,测量的相对剂量与TPS计算相比,γ通过率分别为99.84%±0.31%、98.89%±1.32%和99.16%±1.12%;PlanSynergy2计划分别在Synergy1、Synergy2、VersaHD执行时测得的点剂量与TPS计算的偏差分别为0.24%±1.98%、0.15%±1.97%和-0.09%±0.66%,测量的相对剂量与TPS计算相比,γ通过率分别为98.75%±1.38%、99.77%±0.42%和99.41%±1.66%;PlanVersaHD计划分别在Synergy1、Synergy2、VersaHD执行时测得的点剂量与TPS计算的偏差分别为-0.57%±1.07%、-0.42%±2.10%和-1.55%±1.62%,测量的相对剂量与TPS计算相比,γ通过率分别为97.79%±1.61%、98.75%±1.37%和99.78%±0.60%。在3台加速器互换执行VMAT计划中,点剂量偏差均在3%以内,相对剂量偏差的γ通过率均在95%以上,均满足临床要求。结论:3台医科达加速器束流（6 MV X射线）匹配后可互换执行VMAT计划。     

Wedge factor dependence with depth, field size, and nominal distance--a general computational rule

We have investigated the dependence of the wedge factors with field size, depth, nominal, and extended distances for 4, 6, 18, and 24 MV photon beams. Analysis of the experimental data suggests a general linear dependence of the wedge factors with field size and depth. The study shows that changes in wedge factors are insignificant (< or = +/-1.0%) with respect to measurements at nominal SSD, SAD, or extended SSD. This independence of the wedge factors on source-to-surface distance was studied for different photon energies (4-24 MV) and for different attenuating wedges (external and internal wedges). For clinical applications, an algorithm is presented to calculate the wedge factor dependence with field size and depth. The new algorithm has been successfully implemented to replace wedge look-up tables for dose and MU calculations in PRISM 1.2 treatment planning system used in our department.     

Dosimetric validation of the Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation algorithm: fundamental characterization in water

A new algorithm, Acuros? XB Advanced Dose Calculation, has been introduced by Varian Medical Systems in the Eclipse planning system for photon dose calculation in external radiotherapy. Acuros XB is based on the solution of the linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE). The LBTE describes the macroscopic behaviour of radiation particles as they travel through and interact with matter. The implementation of Acuros XB in Eclipse has not been assessed; therefore, it is necessary to perform these pre-clinical validation tests to determine its accuracy. This paper summarizes the results of comparisons of Acuros XB calculations against measurements and calculations performed with a previously validated dose calculation algorithm, the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The tasks addressed in this paper are limited to the fundamental characterization of Acuros XB in water for simple geometries. Validation was carried out for four different beams: 6 and 15 MV beams from a Varian Clinac 2100 iX, and 6 and 10 MV 'flattening filter free' (FFF) beams from a TrueBeam linear accelerator. The TrueBeam FFF are new beams recently introduced in clinical practice on general purpose linear accelerators and have not been previously reported on. Results indicate that Acuros XB accurately reproduces measured and calculated (with AAA) data and only small deviations were observed for all the investigated quantities. In general, the overall degree of accuracy for Acuros XB in simple geometries can be stated to be within 1% for open beams and within 2% for mechanical wedges. The basic validation of the Acuros XB algorithm was therefore considered satisfactory for both conventional photon beams as well as for FFF beams of new generation linacs such as the Varian TrueBeam.     

Analytical representation for varian EDW factors at off-center points

The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate a new analytical model for Varian enhanced dynamic wedge factors at off-center points. The new model was verified by comparing measured and calculated wedge factors for the standard set of wedge angles (i.e., 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 45 degrees and 60 degrees), different symmetric and asymmetric fields, and two different photon energies. The maximum difference between calculated and measured wedge factors is less than 2%. The average absolute difference is within 1%. The obtained results indicate that the suggested model can be useful for independent dose calculation with enhanced dynamic wedges.     

Description and dosimetric verification of the PEREGRINE Monte Carlo dose calculation system for photon beams incident on a water phantom

PEREGRINE is a three-dimensional Monte Carlo dose calculation system written specifically for radiotherapy. This paper describes the implementation and overall dosimetric accuracy of PEREGRINE physics algorithms, beam model, and beam commissioning procedure. Particle-interaction data, tracking geometries, scoring, variance reduction, and statistical analysis are described. The BEAM code system is used to model the treatment-independent accelerator head, resulting in the identification of primary and scattered photon sources and an electron contaminant source. The magnitude of the electron source is increased to improve agreement with measurements in the buildup region in the largest fields. Published measurements provide an estimate of backscatter on monitor chamber response. Commissioning consists of selecting the electron beam energy, determining the scale factor that defines dose per monitor unit, and describing treatment-dependent beam modifiers. We compare calculations with measurements in a water phantom for open fields, wedges, blocks, and a multileaf collimator for 6 and 18 MV Varian Clinac 2100C photon beams. All calculations are reported as dose per monitor unit. Aside from backscatter estimates, no additional, field-specific normalization is included in comparisons with measurements. Maximum discrepancies were less than either 2% of the maximum dose or 1.2 mm in isodose position for all field sizes and beam modifiers.     

Portal dose image verification: formalism and application of the collapsed cone superposition method

A formalism tailored for portal dose image verification is proposed to facilitate the comparison of calculated and measured portal dose distributions. Each portal image is converted into a dose proportional image and normalized to the reference beam calibration dose per monitor unit. The calculated or measured dose to a detector phantom is accordingly normalized so as to enable direct comparison. The collapsed cone kernel superposition method is adapted and evaluated for calculation of portal dose distributions in a water-equivalent detector phantom through comparisons with Monte Carlo calculations and with measurements. The deviation compared with Monte Carlo calculations for 6 and 15 MV was between +0.9% (the 0.9 quantile) and -2.1% (the 0.1 quantile) for a range of investigated geometries. Collapsed cone calculations compared with measurements for clinical fields agreed within [-1.9%, +2.4%] for 15 MV and [-0.9%, +3.2%] for 6 MV for the 0.1 and 0.9 quantiles, respectively. Hence, the absolute portal dose to a detector phantom could be calculated and verified well within the present accuracy requirements for clinical dose calculations.     

On-line quality assurance of rotational radiotherapy treatment delivery by means of a 2D ion chamber array and the Octavius phantom

For routine pretreatment verification of innovative treatment techniques such as (intensity modulated) dynamic arc therapy and helical TomoTherapy, an on-line and reliable method would be highly desirable. The present solution proposed by TomoTherapy, Inc. (Madison, WI) relies on film dosimetry in combination with up to two simultaneous ion chamber point dose measurements. A new method is proposed using a 2D ion chamber array (Seven29, PTW, Freiburg, Germany) inserted in a dedicated octagonal phantom, called Octavius. The octagonal shape allows easy positioning for measurements in multiple planes. The directional dependence of the response of the detector was primarily investigated on a dual energy (6 and 18 MV) Clinac 21EX (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) as no fixed angle incidences can be calculated in the Hi-Art TPS of TomoTherapy. The array was irradiated from different gantry angles and with different arc deliveries, and the dose distributions at the level of the detector were calculated with the AAA (Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm) photon dose calculation algorithm implemented in Eclipse (Varian). For validation on the 6 MV TomoTherapy unit, rotational treatments were generated, and dose distributions were calculated with the Hi-Art TPS. Multiple cylindrical ion chamber measurements were used to cross-check the dose calculation and dose delivery in Octavius in the absence of the 2D array. To compensate for the directional dependence of the 2D array, additional prototypes of Octavius were manufactured with built-in cylindrically symmetric compensation cavities. When using the Octavius phantom with a 2 cm compensation cavity, measurements with an accuracy comparable to that of single ion chambers can be achieved. The complete Octavius solution for quality assurance of rotational treatments consists of: The 2D array, two octagonal phantoms (with and without compensation layer), an insert for nine cylindrical ion chambers, and a set of inserts of various tissue equivalent materials of different densities. The combination of the 2D array with the Octavius phantom proved to be a fast and reliable method for pretreatment verification of rotational treatments. Quality control of TomoTherapy patients was reduced to a total of approximately 25 min per patient.