SU-F-T-469: A Clinically Observed Discrepancy Between Image-Based and Log- Based MLC Position

Purpose: To present a clinical case which challenges the base assumption of log-file based QA, by showing that the actual position of a MLC leaf can suddenly deviate from its programmed and logged position by >1 mm as observed with real-time imaging. Methods: An EPID-based exit-fluence dosimetry system designed to prevent gross delivery errors was used in cine mode to capture portal images during treatment. Visual monitoring identified an anomalous MLC leaf pair gap not otherwise detected by the automatic position verification. The position of the erred leaf was measured on EPID images and log files were analyzed for the treatment in question, the prior day's treatment, and for daily MLC test patterns acquired on those treatment days. Additional standard test patterns were used to quantify the leaf position. Results: Whereas the log file reported no difference between planned and recorded positions, image-based measurements showed the leaf to be 1.3±0.1 mm medial from the planned position. This offset was confirmed with the test pattern irradiations. Conclusion: It has been clinically observed that log-file derived leaf positions can differ from their actual positions 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 trusting log file records. Intra-treatment EPID imaging provides a method to capture departures from MLC planned positions. Work was supported in part by Varian Medical Systems.