Kai-Cheng Chuang1,2, William Giles3, Justus Adamson3. 1. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America. 2. Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Abstract
Purpose:Trajectory log files are increasingly being utilized clinically for machine and patient specific QA. The process of converting the DICOM-RT plan to a deliverable trajectory by the linac control software introduces some uncertainty that is inherently incorporated into measurement-based patient specific QA but is not necessarily included for trajectory log file-based methods. Roughly half of prior studies have included this uncertainty in the analysis while the remaining studies have ignored it, and it has yet to be quantified in the literature. Methods: We collected DICOM-RT files from the treatment planning system and the trajectory log files from four TrueBeam linear accelerators for 25 IMRT and 10 VMAT plans. We quantified the DICOM-RT Conversion to Trajectory Residual (DCTR, difference between 'planned' MLC position from TPS DICOM-RT file and 'expected' MLC position (the deliverable MLC positions calculated by the linac control software) from trajectory log file) and compared it to the discrepancy between actual and expected machine parameters recorded in trajectory log files. Results: RMS of the DCTR was 0.0845 mm (range of RMS per field/arc: 0.0173-0.1825 mm) for 35 plans (114 fields/arcs) and was independent of treatment technique, with a maximum observed discrepancy at any control point of 0.7255 mm. DCTR was correlated with MLC velocity and was consistent over the course of treatment and over time, with a slight change in magnitude observed after a linac software upgrade. For comparison, the RMS of trajectory log file reported delivery error for moving MLCs was 0.0205 mm, thus DCTR is about four times the recorded delivery error in the trajectory log file. Conclusion: The uncertainty introduced from the conversion process by the linac control software from DICOM-RT plan to a deliverable trajectory is 3-4 times larger than the discrepancy between actual and expected machine parameters recorded in trajectory log files. This uncertainty should be incorporated into the analysis when using trajectory log file-based methods for analyzing MLC performance or patient-specific QA.
Purpose:Trajectory log files are increasingly being utilized clinically for machine and patient specific QA. The process of converting the DICOM-RT plan to a deliverable trajectory by the linac control software introduces some uncertainty that is inherently incorporated into measurement-based patient specific QA but is not necessarily included for trajectory log file-based methods. Roughly half of prior studies have included this uncertainty in the analysis while the remaining studies have ignored it, and it has yet to be quantified in the literature. Methods: We collected DICOM-RT files from the treatment planning system and the trajectory log files from four TrueBeam linear accelerators for 25 IMRT and 10 VMAT plans. We quantified the DICOM-RT Conversion to Trajectory Residual (DCTR, difference between 'planned' MLC position from TPS DICOM-RT file and 'expected' MLC position (the deliverable MLC positions calculated by the linac control software) from trajectory log file) and compared it to the discrepancy between actual and expected machine parameters recorded in trajectory log files. Results: RMS of the DCTR was 0.0845 mm (range of RMS per field/arc: 0.0173-0.1825 mm) for 35 plans (114 fields/arcs) and was independent of treatment technique, with a maximum observed discrepancy at any control point of 0.7255 mm. DCTR was correlated with MLC velocity and was consistent over the course of treatment and over time, with a slight change in magnitude observed after a linac software upgrade. For comparison, the RMS of trajectory log file reported delivery error for moving MLCs was 0.0205 mm, thus DCTR is about four times the recorded delivery error in the trajectory log file. Conclusion: The uncertainty introduced from the conversion process by the linac control software from DICOM-RT plan to a deliverable trajectory is 3-4 times larger than the discrepancy between actual and expected machine parameters recorded in trajectory log files. This uncertainty should be incorporated into the analysis when using trajectory log file-based methods for analyzing MLC performance or patient-specific QA.