Yoshiyuki Katsuta1, Noriyuki Kadoya2, Yukio Fujita3, Eiji Shimizu4, Kenichi Matsunaga4, Haruo Matsushita5, Kazuhiro Majima4, Keiichi Jingu5. 1. Department of Radiology, Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. Electronic address: kadoya.n@rad.med.tohoku.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan. 4. Department of Radiology, Takeda General Hospital, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A log file-based method cannot detect dosimetric changes due to linac component miscalibration because log files are insensitive to miscalibration. Herein, clinical impacts of dosimetric changes on a log file-based method were determined. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five head-and-neck and five prostate plans were applied. Miscalibration-simulated log files were generated by inducing a linac component miscalibration into the log file. Miscalibration magnitudes for leaf, gantry, and collimator at the general tolerance level were ±0.5mm, ±1°, and ±1°, respectively, and at a tighter tolerance level achievable on current linac were ±0.3mm, ±0.5°, and ±0.5°, respectively. Re-calculations were performed on patient anatomy using log file data. RESULTS: Changes in tumor control probability/normal tissue complication probability from treatment planning system dose to re-calculated dose at the general tolerance level was 1.8% on planning target volume (PTV) and 2.4% on organs at risk (OARs) in both plans. These changes at the tighter tolerance level were improved to 1.0% on PTV and to 1.5% on OARs, with a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: We determined the clinical impacts of dosimetric changes on a log file-based method using a general tolerance level and a tighter tolerance level for linac miscalibration and found that a tighter tolerance level significantly improved the accuracy of the log file-based method.
PURPOSE: A log file-based method cannot detect dosimetric changes due to linac component miscalibration because log files are insensitive to miscalibration. Herein, clinical impacts of dosimetric changes on a log file-based method were determined. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Five head-and-neck and five prostate plans were applied. Miscalibration-simulated log files were generated by inducing a linac component miscalibration into the log file. Miscalibration magnitudes for leaf, gantry, and collimator at the general tolerance level were ±0.5mm, ±1°, and ±1°, respectively, and at a tighter tolerance level achievable on current linac were ±0.3mm, ±0.5°, and ±0.5°, respectively. Re-calculations were performed on patient anatomy using log file data. RESULTS: Changes in tumor control probability/normal tissue complication probability from treatment planning system dose to re-calculated dose at the general tolerance level was 1.8% on planning target volume (PTV) and 2.4% on organs at risk (OARs) in both plans. These changes at the tighter tolerance level were improved to 1.0% on PTV and to 1.5% on OARs, with a statistically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: We determined the clinical impacts of dosimetric changes on a log file-based method using a general tolerance level and a tighter tolerance level for linac miscalibration and found that a tighter tolerance level significantly improved the accuracy of the log file-based method.