Feasibility of Patient Quality Assurance Method Based on Log File and Onboard Detector in Helical Tomotherapy Technique

Ghazal Etemadi; Ahmad Mostaar; Payam Azadeh; Niloofar Yousefi Moteghaed

doi:10.18502/fbt.v13i2.21939

Feasibility of Patient Quality Assurance Method Based on Log File and Onboard Detector in Helical Tomotherapy Technique

Ghazal Etemadi

Ahmad Mostaar

Payam Azadeh

Niloofar Yousefi Moteghaed

Abstract

Purpose: The phantom-less patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) for intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plan verification has been exploited recently. The aim of this study was the feasibility of the PSQA of the plan based on a log file and onboard detector for prostate patients in helical tomotherapy.

Method: For 15 prostate patients, the quality assurance (QA) of the helical tomotherapy plan was performed using the Delta4 phantom and Cheese phantom to evaluate the spatial dose distribution and point dose, respectively. These parameters were also reconstructed by delivery analysis (DA) software using the measured leaf open times (LOTs). The gamma analysis and relative dose difference were used to compare the measured and reconstructed dose with the calculated values. Then, using the relative discrepancy, the log file and onboard detector data were compared with the expected data to assess machine performance.

Results: The mean relative dose difference was within 1.3% among the measurement, reconstruction, and calculation. The results of statistical analysis and p-value showed there is no statistically significant difference in determining the dose difference between the DA-based and conventional QA methods. The gamma values of 3%/3mm, 3%/2mm, 2%/3mm, 2%/2mm, 2%/1mm, and 1%/1mm for the DA-based QA method were the same as the measurement QA method. However, the gamma values of 3%/1mm, 1%/3mm, and 1%/2mm were comparable. The mean percentage difference LOTs was 0.07%, and most differences occurred in very low and some high LOTs. The relative difference was lower than 2.30% for the couch speed, couch movement, monitor unit, and rotation per minute (RPM) gantry between the log file and expected data.

Conclusion: The DA software is an efficient alternative to the measurement-based PSQA method. However, the accuracy of the DA software requires further investigations for gamma analysis at strict criteria. The very low and high LOTs may lead to the dose discrepancy. The tomotherapy machine can accurately implement the planned parameters.

1- L. Bogner, J. Scherer, M. Treutwein, M. Hartmann, F. Gum, and A. Amediek, "Verification of IMRT: techniques and problems." (in eng), Strahlenther Onkol, Vol. 180 (No. 6), pp. 340-50, Jun (2004).
2- G. A. Ezzell et al., "Guidance document on delivery, treatment planning, and clinical implementation of IMRT: report of the IMRT Subcommittee of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee." (in eng), Med Phys, Vol. 30 (No. 8), pp. 2089-115, Aug (2003).
3- A. C. Hartford et al., "American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Practice Guideline for Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT)." (in eng), Am J Clin Oncol, Vol. 35 (No. 6), pp. 612-7, Dec (2012).
4- J. Balog and E. Soisson, "Helical tomotherapy quality assurance." (in eng), Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, Vol. 71 (No. 1 Suppl), pp. S113-7, (2008).
5- K. M. Langen et al., "QA for helical tomotherapy: report of the AAPM Task Group 148." (in eng), Med Phys, Vol. 37 (No. 9), pp. 4817-53, Sep (2010).
6- D. Létourneau, M. Gulam, D. Yan, M. Oldham, and J. W. Wong, "Evaluation of a 2D diode array for IMRT quality assurance." (in eng), Radiother Oncol, Vol. 70 (No. 2), pp. 199-206, Feb (2004).
7- V. Feygelman, D. Opp, K. Javedan, A. J. Saini, and G. Zhang, "Evaluation of a 3D diode array dosimeter for helical tomotherapy delivery QA." (in eng), Med Dosim, Vol. 35 (No. 4), pp. 324-9, Winter (2010).
8- Shinhaeng Cho et al., "Patient QA System Using Delta⁴ Phantom for Tomotherapy: A Comparative Study with EBT3 Film." Journal of Korean Physical Society, Vol. 74pp. 816-21, April 01, 2019 (2019).
9- Y. H. Yoon et al., "Development of Automated Delivery Quality Assurance Analysis Software for Helical Tomotherapy." Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, Vol. 22p. 15330338231175781, 2023/01/01 (2023).
10- D. A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, "A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions." (in eng), Med Phys, Vol. 25 (No. 5), pp. 656-61, May (1998).
11- L. Xing and J. G. Li, "Computer verification of fluence map for intensity modulated radiation therapy." (in eng), Med Phys, Vol. 27 (No. 9), pp. 2084-92, Sep (2000).
12- J.R. Palta, C. Liu, and J.G. Li, "Quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiation therapy." International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Vol. 71 (No. 1), pp.108-120, (2008).
13- B.E. Nelms, H. Zhen, and W.A. Tome, "Per-beam, planar IMRT QA passing rates do not predict clinically relevant patient dose errors." Medical Physics, Vol. 38 (No.2), pp. 1037-1081, (2011).
14- R.A. Siochi, A. Molineu, C.G. Orton, "Point/Counterpoint. Patient-specific QA for IMRT should be performed using software rather than hardware methods." Medical Physics, Vol. 40 (No. 7), pp. 70601-70601, (20 13).
15- E. Chung, D. Kwon, T. Park, H. Kang and Y. Chung, "Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance." Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 19 (No. 6), pp. 193-202, (2018).
16- T. Alharthi, P. Vial, L. Holloway, D. Thwaites, "Intrinsic detector sensitivity analysis as a tool to characterize ArcCHECK and EPID sensitivity to variations delivery for lung SBRT VMAT plans." Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, Vol. 22 (No. 6), pp. 229-269, (2021).
17- D. W. Litzenberg, J. M. Moran, and B. A. Fraass, "Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysis." (in eng), J Appl Clin Med Phys, Vol. 3 (No. 2), pp. 63-72, Spring (2002).
18- Wojciech Osewski et al., "Clinical examples of 3D dose distribution reconstruction, based on the actual MLC leaves movement, for dynamic treatment techniques." Reports of Practical Oncology & Radiotherapy, Vol. 1911/01 (2014).
19- M Dinesh Kumar, N Thirumavalavan, D Venugopal Krishna, and M Babaiah, "QA of intensity-modulated beams using dynamic MLC log files." Journal of Medical Physics, Original Article Vol. 31 (No. 1), pp. 36-41, January 1, 2006 (2006).
20- T. Kodama, Y. Saito, S. Hatanaka, M. Hariu, M. Shimbo, and T. Takahashi, "Commissioning of the Mobius3D independent dose verification system for TomoTherapy." (in eng), J Appl Clin Med Phys, Vol. 20 (No. 5), pp. 12-20, May (2019).
21- M. C. Han et al., "TomoEQA: Dose verification for patient-specific quality assurance in helical tomotherapy using an exit detector." (in eng), Phys Med, Vol. 82pp. 1-6, Feb (2021).
22- L. L. Handsfield, R. Jones, D. D. Wilson, J. V. Siebers, P. W. Read, and Q. Chen, "Phantomless patient-specific TomoTherapy QA via delivery performance monitoring and a secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation." (in eng), Med Phys, Vol. 41 (No. 10), p. 101703, Oct (2014).
23- Q. Chen, D. Westerly, Z. Fang, K. Sheng, and Y. Chen, "TomoTherapy MLC verification using exit detector data." Med Phys, Vol. 39 (No. 1), pp. 143-51, Jan (2012).
24- S. Deshpande, M. Geurts, P. Vial, P. Metcalfe, M. Lee, and L. Holloway, "Clinical significance of treatment delivery errors for helical TomoTherapy nasopharyngeal plans - A dosimetric simulation study." (in eng), Phys Med, Vol. 33pp. 159-69, Jan (2017).
25- S. Deshpande, A. Xing, P. Metcalfe, L. Holloway, P. Vial, and M. Geurts, "Clinical implementation of an exit detector-based dose reconstruction tool for helical tomotherapy delivery quality assurance." (in eng), Med Phys, Vol. 44 (No. 10), pp. 5457-66, Oct (2017).
26- K. Tarutani, Masao Tanooka, Keisuke Sano, Wataru Okada, Masayuki Fujiwara, and Koichiro Yamakado, "Evaluation of Delivery Analysis to Detect Intrafractional Motion during Tomotherapy." International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology, Vol. 08pp. 225-35, 01/01 (2019).
27- E. Chung, D. Kwon, T. Park, H. Kang, and Y. Chung, "Clinical implementation of Dosimetry Check™ for TomoTherapy(®) delivery quality assurance." (in eng), J Appl Clin Med Phys, Vol. 19 (No. 6), pp. 193-99, Nov (2018).
28- Rajesh Thiyagarajan et al., "Leaf open time sinogram (LOTS): a novel approach for patient specific quality assurance of total marrow irradiation." Radiation Oncology, Vol. 15 (No. 1), p. 236, 2020/10/14 (2020).
29- K. H. Chang et al., "Statistical Analysis of Treatment Planning Parameters for Prediction of Delivery Quality Assurance Failure for Helical Tomotherapy." (in eng), Technol Cancer Res Treat, Vol. 19p. 1533033820979692, Jan-Dec (2020).
30- C. Kim, M. C. Han, Y. K. Lee, H. B. Shin, H. Kim, and J. S. Kim, "Comprehensive clinical evaluation of TomoEQA for patient-specific pre-treatment quality assurance in helical tomotherapy." (in eng), Radiat Oncol, Vol. 17 (No. 1), p. 177, Nov 7 (2022).

Files	XML PDF (903KB)
Issue	Vol 13 No 2 (2026)
Section	Original Article(s)
DOI	https://doi.org/10.18502/fbt.v13i2.21939
Keywords
tomotherapy patient-specific quality assurance prostate cancer log file onboard detector DA software

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Etemadi G, Mostaar A, Azadeh P, Yousefi Moteghaed N. Feasibility of Patient Quality Assurance Method Based on Log File and Onboard Detector in Helical Tomotherapy Technique. Frontiers Biomed Technol. 2026;13(2):407-415.

Vancouver

Download Citation