Helical tomotherapy is a relatively new modality with integrated treatment planning and delivery hardware for radiation therapy treatments. In view of the uniqueness of the hardware design of the helical tomotherapy unit and its implications in routine quality assurance, the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 148 to review this modality and make recommendations for quality assurance related methodologies. The specific objectives of this Task Group are: ͑a͒ To discuss quality assurance techniques, frequencies, and tolerances and ͑b͒ discuss dosimetric verification techniques applicable to this unit. This report summarizes the findings of the Task Group and aims to provide the practicing clinical medical physicist with the insight into the technology that is necessary to establish an independent and comprehensive quality assurance program for a helical tomotherapy unit. The emphasis of the report is to describe the rationale for the proposed QA program and to provide example tests that can be performed, drawing from the collective experience of the task group members and the published literature. It is expected that as technology continues to evolve, so will the test procedures that may be used in the future to perform comprehensive quality assurance for helical tomotherapy units.

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculationbased dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs. | REPORT OF AAPM TASK GROUP 219 ON INDEPENDENT CALCULATION-BASED DOSE/ MU VERIFICATION FOR IMRT

No abstract

Purpose With the advent of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment techniques, the requirement for more elaborate approaches in reviewing linac components’ integrity has become even more stringent. A possible solution to this challenge is to employ the usage of log files generated during treatment. The log files generated by the new generation of Elekta linacs record events at a higher frequency (25 Hz) than their predecessors, which allows for retrospective analysis and identification of subtle changes and provides another means of quality assurance. The ability to track machine components based on log files for each treatment can allow for constant monitoring of fraction consistency in addition to machine reliability. Using Elekta Agility log files, a set of tests were developed to evaluate the reliability and robustness of the multileaf collimators (MLCs). Methods To evaluate Elekta log file utilization for linac MLC QA effectiveness, five MLC test patterns were constructed to review the effects of leaf velocity and acceleration on positional accuracy, including gravitational effects for the Elekta MLC system. Each test was run five times in a particular setting to obtain reproducibility data and statistical averages. This study was performed on two identical Versa HD machines, each delivering a full set of test plans with all possible variations. Plans were delivered using Elekta's iCOMcat software and recorded log files were extracted. Log files were reformatted for readability and automatically analyzed in Matlab®. Results The Elekta Agility MLC system was shown to be capable of obtaining speeds within the range of 5–35 mm/s. MLC step and shoot tests have demonstrated the MLC system's capability of having positional repeatability, averaging 0.03‐ and 0.08‐mm offsets with and without gravitational effects, respectively. The IMRT‐specific tests have shown that gravitational effects are negligible with all positional tests averaging 0.5‐mm offsets. The largest speed root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) for the MLC system was found at the maximum speed of 35 mm/s with an average error of 0.8 mm. For slower speeds, the value was found to be much lower. Conclusion Utilizing log files has demonstrated the feasibility for higher precision of MLC motions to be reviewed, based on the performance tests that were instituted. Log files provide insight on the effects of friction, acceleration, and gravity, with MU's delivered that previously could not be reviewed in such detail. Based on our results, log file‐based QA has enhanced our ability to review performance, functionality, and perform QA on Elekta's MLC system.