Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Med Phys. 2018 Nov;45(11):4816-4821. doi: 10.1002/mp.13191. Epub 2018 Oct 10.
Latencies for motion management systems have previously been presented as guidelines for system development and implementation. These guidelines consider the overall system latency, including data acquisition, algorithm processing, and linac triggering time. However, during system development, the triggering latency of the clinical linear accelerator is often considered fixed. This paper presents a method to decouple the linac-only triggering latency from the total system latency such that latency can be considered in terms of only the linac-independent aspects of the system.
The linac-only latency was investigated by considering the time at which a linac response was observed relative to the time at which a beam-on/off triggering signal was sent to the linac. The relative time between the two signals was analyzed using a multichannel oscilloscope with input signals from a custom gating box to manually trigger the beam state as well as a diode positioned at beam isocenter to monitor the linac response. The beam-on/off latency was measured at multiple energies (6/18 MV) and repetition rates (100-600 MU/min) to investigate beam setting dependencies.
The measured latency was observed to be dependent on the accelerator settings for repetition rate and energy, with beam-on latencies decreasing with increasing repetition rate and decreasing energy. In contrast, the opposite trend was present for the observed beam-off latency. At 600 MU/min, beam-on/off latencies were observed to be 3.37/1.45 ms for a 6 MV beam and 6.02/0.73 ms for an 18 MV beam. Negative latencies were possible for beam-off measurements due to the mechanical latency being less than the pulse separation at given repetition rates.
The linac latency associated with triggering the beam-on/off was determined to have a minor contribution to the total allowable system latency; thus, the majority of the total system latency can be attributed to linac-independent factors.
运动管理系统的延迟此前已被提出作为系统开发和实施的指导方针。这些准则考虑了包括数据采集、算法处理和直线加速器触发时间在内的整个系统延迟。然而,在系统开发过程中,临床直线加速器的触发延迟通常被认为是固定的。本文提出了一种方法,可以将直线加速器的触发延迟与总系统延迟分离,以便仅考虑系统中与直线加速器无关的方面的延迟。
通过考虑直线加速器响应相对于发送到直线加速器的束开/关触发信号的时间,研究了仅直线加速器的延迟。使用多通道示波器分析两个信号之间的相对时间,示波器的输入信号来自一个定制的门控盒,用于手动触发束状态,以及一个位于束等中心的二极管,用于监测直线加速器的响应。在多个能量(6/18MV)和重复率(100-600MU/min)下测量束开/关延迟,以研究束设置的依赖性。
观察到测量的延迟取决于重复率和能量的加速器设置,束开延迟随重复率的增加和能量的降低而减小。相比之下,观察到的束关延迟则呈现相反的趋势。在 600MU/min 时,6MV 束的束开/关延迟分别为 3.37/1.45ms,18MV 束的束开/关延迟分别为 6.02/0.73ms。由于给定重复率下的机械延迟小于脉冲间隔,因此可能出现负的束关延迟。
确定与触发束开/关相关的直线加速器延迟对总允许系统延迟的贡献较小;因此,总系统延迟的大部分可以归因于与直线加速器无关的因素。