Premium
SU‐F‐T‐233: Evaluation of Treatment Delivery Parameters Using High Resolution ELEKTA Log Files
Author(s) -
Kabat C,
Defoor D,
Alexandrian A,
Papanikolaou N,
Stathakis S
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956372
Subject(s) - quality assurance , linear particle accelerator , image guided radiation therapy , consistency (knowledge bases) , truebeam , nuclear medicine , dosimetry , monitor unit , computer science , radiosurgery , mathematics , beam (structure) , physics , medicine , medical imaging , radiation therapy , optics , artificial intelligence , external quality assessment , pathology
Purpose: As modern linacs have become more technologically advanced with the implementation of IGRT and IMRT with HDMLCs, a requirement for more elaborate tracking techniques to monitor components’ integrity is paramount. ElektaLog files are generated every 40 milliseconds, which can be analyzed to track subtle changes and provide another aspect of quality assurance. This allows for constant monitoring of fraction consistency in addition to machine reliability. With this in mind, it was the aim of the study to evaluate if ElektaLog files can be utilized for linac consistency QA. Methods: ElektaLogs were reviewed for 16 IMRT patient plans with >16 fractions. Logs were analyzed by creating fluence maps from recorded values of MLC locations, jaw locations, and dose per unit time. Fluence maps were then utilized to calculate a 2D gamma index with a 2%–2mm criteria for each fraction. ElektaLogs were also used to analyze positional errors for MLC leaves and jaws, which were used to compute an overall error for the MLC banks, Y‐jaws, and X‐jaws by taking the root‐meansquare value of the individual recorded errors during treatment. Additionally, beam on time was calculated using the number of ElektaLog file entries within the file. Results: The average 2D gamma for all 16 patient plans was found to be 98.0±2.0%. Recorded gamma index values showed an acceptable correlation between fractions. Average RMS values for MLC leaves and the jaws resulted in a leaf variation of roughly 0.3±0.08 mm and jaw variation of about 0.15±0.04 mm, both of which fall within clinical tolerances. Conclusion: The use of ElektaLog files for day‐to‐day evaluation of linac integrity and patient QA can be utilized to allow for reliable analysis of system accuracy and performance.