The dosimetric output of a 6FFF beam, produced from a Varian TrueBeam linac exhibited an unexpected downward trend over time that was contrary to well-established expectations. To elucidate the cause of this uncharacteristic trend, a review of the linac\'s quality control results over its lifetime was performed, including, constancy checks of the dosimetric output, beam energy, flatness and symmetry, and percentage depth dose characteristics. These results were supplemented with a comprehensive series of measurements including flatness and symmetry measurements with a 1D-diode array, high-resolution measurements of the photon beam\'s build-up region with a parallel-plate chamber and measurement of the beam\'s output as a function of the x-ray target position. The review of the linac\'s QC results and supplemental tests identified no deviations in the linac\'s performance from its commissioning and baseline measurements. However, the 6FFF beam output exhibited a significant dependence on the target location relative to its default position, increasing by 5.43 % with a 0.5 mm target translation, indicating that target degradation was the cause of the atypical output trend. The change in output behaviour was believed to be the result of primary electrons escaping the degraded target and interacting with the linac\'s monitor chamber. Replacement of the x-ray target caused the 6FFF output to realign with expected trends. Target degradation was uncovered due to a robust quality control trending database and awareness of typical output behaviour. These results demonstrate the importance of data trending to identify component failure and provide centres with knowledge to recognise this potential fault.

This study provides insight into the overall system performance, stability, and delivery accuracy of the first clinical self-shielded stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) system. Quality assurance procedures specifically developed for this unit are discussed, and trends and variations over the course of 2-years for beam constancy, targeting and dose delivery are presented. Absolute dose calibration for this 2.7 MV unit is performed to deliver 1 cGy/MU at dmax  = 7 mm at a source-to-axis-distance (SAD) of 450 mm for a 25 mm collimator. Output measurements were made with 2-setups: a device that attaches to a fixed position on the couch (daily) and a spherical phantom that attaches to the collimating wheel (monthly). Beam energy was measured using a cylindrical acrylic phantom at depths of 100 (D10 ) and 200 (D20 ) mm. Beam profiles were evaluated using Gafchromic film and compared with TPS beam data. Accuracy in beam targeting was quantified with the Winston-Lutz (WL) and end-to-end (E2E) tests. Delivery quality assurance (DQA) was performed prior to clinical treatments using Gafchromic EBT3/XD film. Net cumulative output adjustments of 15% (pre-clinical), 9% (1st year) and 3% (2nd year) were made. The mean output was 0.997 ± 0.010 cGy/MU (range: 0.960-1.046 cGy/MU) and 0.993 ± 0.029 cGy/MU (range: 0.884-1.065 cGy/MU) for measurements with the daily and monthly setups, respectively. The mean relative beam energy (D10 /D20 ) was 0.998 ± 0.004 (range: 0.991-1.006). The mean total targeting error was 0.46 ± 0.17 mm (range: 0.06-0.98 mm) for the WL and 0.52 ± 0.28 mm (range: 0.11-1.27 mm) for the E2E tests. The average gamma pass rates for DQA measurements were 99.0% and 90.5% for 2%/2 mm and 2%/1 mm gamma criteria, respectively. This SRS unit meets tolerance limits recommended by TG-135, MPPG 9a., and TG-142 with a treatment delivery accuracy similar to what is achieved by other SRS systems.

Beam Output Auditing (BOA) is one key process of the EORTC radiation therapy quality assurance program. Here the results obtained between 2005 and 2014 are presented and compared to previous results.For all BOA reports the following parameters were scored: centre, country, date of audit, beam energies and treatment machines audited, auditing organisation, percentage of agreement between stated and measured dose.Four-hundred and sixty-one BOA reports were analyzed containing the results of 1790 photon and 1366 electron beams, delivered by 755 different treatment machines. The majority of beams (91.1%) were within the optimal limit of ≤ 3%. Only 13 beams (0.4%; n = 9 electrons; n = 4 photons), were out of the range of acceptance of ≤ 5%. Previous reviews reported a much higher percentage of 2.5% or more of the BOAs with >5% deviation.The majority of EORTC centres present beam output variations within the 3% tolerance cutoff value and only 0.4% of audited beams presented with variations of more than 5%. This is an important improvement compared to previous BOA results.