Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output

This study aims to evaluate the use of Varian radiotherapy dynamic treatment log (DynaLog) files to verify IMRT plan delivery as part of a routine quality assurance procedure. Delivery accuracy in terms of machine performance was quantified by multileaf collimator (MLC) position errors and fluence delivery accuracy for patients receiving intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment. The relationship between machine performance and plan complexity, quantified by the modulation complexity score (MCS) was also investigated. Actual MLC positions and delivered fraction of monitor units (MU), recorded every 50 ms during IMRT delivery, were extracted from the DynaLog files. The planned MLC positions and fractional MU were taken from the record and verify system MLC control file. Planned and delivered beam data were compared to determine leaf position errors with and without the overshoot effect. Analysis was also performed on planned and actual fluence maps reconstructed from the MLC control file and delivered treatment log files respectively. This analysis was performed for all treatment fractions for 5 prostate, 5 prostate and pelvic node (PPN) and 5 head and neck (H and N) IMRT plans, totalling 82 IMRT fields in ∼5500 DynaLog files. The root mean square (RMS) leaf position errors without the overshoot effect were 0.09, 0.26, 0.19 mm for the prostate, PPN and H and N plans respectively, which increased to 0.30, 0.39 and 0.30 mm when the overshoot effect was considered. Average errors were not affected by the overshoot effect and were 0.05, 0.13 and 0.17 mm for prostate, PPN and H and N plans respectively. The percentage of pixels passing fluence map gamma analysis at 3%/3 mm was 99.94 ± 0.25%, which reduced to 91.62 ± 11.39% at 1%/1 mm criterion. Leaf position errors, but not gamma passing rate, were directly related to plan complexity as determined by the MCS. Site specific confidence intervals for average leaf position errors were set at −0.03–0.12 mm for prostate and −0.02–0.28 mm for more complex PPN and H and N plans. For all treatment sites confidence intervals for RMS errors with the overshoot was set at 0–0.50 mm and for the percentage of pixels passing a gamma analysis at 1%/1 mm a confidence interval of 68.83% was set also for all treatment sites. This work demonstrates the successful implementation of treatment log files to validate IMRT deliveries and how dynamic log files can diagnose delivery errors not possible with phantom based QC. Machine performance was found to be directly related to plan complexity but this is not the dominant determinant of delivery accuracy. (paper)