Baozhou Sun1, Dharanipathy Rangaraj2, Geethpriya Palaniswaamy2, Sridhar Yaddanapudi1, Omar Wooten1, Deshan Yang1, Sasa Mutic1, Lakshmi Santanam3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4921 Parkview Place, St Louis, Missouri. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Scott and White Clinic, Temple, Texas. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4921 Parkview Place, St Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: lsantanam@radonc.wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Traditionally, 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 MATERIALS: An 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. RESULTS: Based 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
PURPOSE: Traditionally, 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 MATERIALS: An 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. RESULTS: Based 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
Authors: Conor K McGarry; Christina E Agnew; Mohammad Hussein; Yatman Tsang; Alan R Hounsell; Catharine H Clark Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Deshan Yang; H Omar Wooten; Olga Green; Harold H Li; Shi Liu; Xiaoling Li; Vivian Rodriguez; Sasa Mutic; Rojano Kashani Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-05-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Shi Liu; Thomas R Mazur; Harold Li; Austen Curcuru; Olga L Green; Baozhou Sun; Sasa Mutic; Deshan Yang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Daniel G McDonald; Dustin J Jacqmin; Christopher J Mart; Nicholas C Koch; Jean L Peng; Michael S Ashenafi; Mario A Fugal; Kenneth N Vanek Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Philipp Szeverinski; Matthias Kowatsch; Thomas Künzler; Marco Meinschad; Patrick Clemens; Alexander F DeVries Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 2.102