Initial experience with TrueBeam trajectory log files for radiation therapy delivery verification

PurposeTraditionally, initial and weekly chart checks involve checking various parameters in the treatment management system against the expected treatment parameters and machine settings. This process is time-consuming and labor intensive. We explore utilizing the Varian TrueBeam log files (Varian Medical System, Palo Alto, CA), which contain the complete delivery parameters for an end-to-end verification of daily patient treatments.Methods and MaterialsAn in-house software tool for 3-dimensional (3D) conformal therapy, enhanced dynamic wedge delivery, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated radiation therapy, flattening filter-free mode, and electron therapy treatment verification was developed. The software reads the Varian TrueBeam log files, extracts the delivered parameters, and compares them against the original treatment planning data. In addition to providing an end-to-end data transfer integrity check, the tool also verifies the accuracy of treatment deliveries. This is performed as part of the initial chart check for IMRT plans and after first fraction for the 3D plans. The software was validated for consistency and accuracy for IMRT and 3D fields.ResultsBased on the validation results the accuracy of MLC, jaw and gantry positions were well within the expected values. The patient quality assurance results for 127 IMRT patients and 51 conventional fields were within 0.25 mm for multileaf collimator positions, 0.3 degree for gantry angles, 0.13 monitor units for monitor unit delivery accuracy, and 1 mm for jaw positions. The delivered dose rates for the flattening filter-free modes were within 1% of the planned dose rates.ConclusionsThe end-to-end data transfer check using TrueBeam log files and the treatment delivery parameter accuracy check provides an efficient, reliable beam parameter check process for various radiation delivery techniques.     

Catching errors with patient-specific pretreatment machine log file analysis

PurposeA robust, efficient, and reliable quality assurance (QA) process is highly desired for modern external beam radiation therapy treatments. Here, we report the results of a semiautomatic, pretreatment, patient-specific QA process based on dynamic machine log file analysis clinically implemented for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments delivered by high energy linear accelerators (Varian 2100/2300 EX, Trilogy, iX-D, Varian Medical Systems Inc, Palo Alto, CA). The multileaf collimator machine (MLC) log files are called Dynalog by Varian.Methods and MaterialsUsing an in-house developed computer program called “Dynalog QA,” we automatically compare the beam delivery parameters in the log files that are generated during pretreatment point dose verification measurements, with the treatment plan to determine any discrepancies in IMRT deliveries. Fluence maps are constructed and compared between the delivered and planned beams.ResultsSince clinical introduction in June 2009, 912 machine log file analyses QA were performed by the end of 2010. Among these, 14 errors causing dosimetric deviation were detected and required further investigation and intervention. These errors were the result of human operating mistakes, flawed treatment planning, and data modification during plan file transfer. Minor errors were also reported in 174 other log file analyses, some of which stemmed from false positives and unreliable results; the origins of these are discussed herein.ConclusionsIt has been demonstrated that the machine log file analysis is a robust, efficient, and reliable QA process capable of detecting errors originating from human mistakes, flawed planning, and data transfer problems. The possibility of detecting these errors is low using point and planar dosimetric measurements.     

DMLC IMRT delivery to targets moving in 2D in Beam's eye view

The goal of this article is to present the algorithm for DMLC leaf control capable of delivering IMRT to tumors that experience motion in two dimensions in the beams eye view (BEV) plane. The generic, two-dimensional (2D) motion of the projection of the rigid target on BEV plane can be divided into two components. The first component describes the motion of the projection of the target along the x axis (parallel to the MLC leaf motions) and the other describes the motion of the target projection on the y axis (perpendicular to the leaf motion direction). First, time optimal leaf trajectories are calculated independently for each leaf pair of the MLC assembly to compensate the x-axis component of the 2D motion of the target on the BEV. These leaf trajectories are then synchronized following the mid time (MT) synchronization procedure. To compensate for the y-axis component of the motion of the target projection on the BEV plane, the procedure of "switching" leaf pair trajectories in the upward (or downward) direction is executed when the target's BEV projection moves upward (or downward) from its equilibrium position along the y axis. When the intensity function is a 2D histogram, the error between the intended and delivered intensity in 2D DMLC IMRT delivery will depend on the shape of the intensity map and on the MLC physical constraint (leaf width and maximum admissible leaf speed). The MT synchronization of leaf trajectories decreases the impact of above constraints on the error in 2D DMLC IMRT intensity map delivery. The proof is provided, that if hardware constraints in the 2D DMLC IMRT delivery strategy are removed, the errors between planned and delivered 2D intensity maps are entirely eliminated. Examples of 2D DMLC IMRT delivery to rigid targets moving along elliptical orbits on BEV planes are calculated and analyzed for 20 clinical fluence maps. The comparisons between the intensity delivered without motion correction, with motion correction along x axis only, and with motion correction for full 2D motion of the target are calculated and quantitatively evaluated. The fluence maps were normalized to 100 MU and the rms difference between the desired and delivered fluence was 12 MU for no motion compensation, 11.18 MU for 1D compensation, and 4.73 MU for 2D motion compensations. The advantage of correcting for full 2D motion of target projected on the BEV plane is demonstrated.