Purpose: Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. Methods: The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and c dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the c verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. Results: Operational shortcomings that can reduce the c tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. Conclusion: Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of c analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

It has been clinically observed that log-file derived leaf positions can differ from their actual position by >1 mm, and therefore cannot be considered to be the actual leaf positions. This cautions the use of log-based methods for MLC or patient quality assurance without independent confirmation of log integrity. Frequent verification of MLC positions through independent means is a necessary precondition to trust log-file records. Intratreatment EPID imaging provides a method to capture departures from MLC planned positions.