PO-0795: Comparison of Service graph log and Dynamic linac log of Elekta Linacs for patient QA

Kowatsch, Matthias; Meinschad, Marco; Leitold, G.; Szeverinski, Philipp; Künzler, Thomas

doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(17)31232-x

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The linac provides the same data at a rate of 4‐Hz at the iCom Interface, which is accessed by LINACwatch® (Qualiformed, France). Kowatsch et al showed that the difference between 25‐Hz and 4‐Hz log files is negligible for dose calculations 34 . All log files contain several dynamic parameters such as leaf position, gantry position, collimator position and delivered monitor units.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kowatsch et al showed that the difference between 25-Hz and 4-Hz log files is negligible for dose calculations. 34 All log files contain several dynamic parameters such as leaf position, gantry position, collimator position and delivered monitor units. For reading and converting log files, the software LINACwatch was used.…”

Section: D | Plan Delivery and Log File Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of 4‐Hz log files and secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation as patient‐specific quality assurance for VMAT prostate plans

Szeverinski

Kowatsch

Künzler

et al. 2021

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: In this study, 4-Hz log files were evaluated with an independent secondary Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm to reduce the workload for patient-specific quality assurance (QA) in clinical routine.Materials and Methods: A total of 30 randomly selected clinical prostate VMAT plans were included. The used treatment planning system (TPS) was Monaco (Elekta, Crawley), and the secondary dose calculation software was SciMoCa (Scientific-RT, Munich). Monaco and SciMoCa work with a Monte Carlo algorithm. A plausibility check of Monaco and SciMoCa was performed using an ionization chamber in the BodyPhantom (BP). First, the original Monaco RT plans were verified with SciMoCa (pretreatment QA). Second, the corresponding 4-Hz log files were converted into RT log file plans and sent to SciMoCa as on-treatment QA. MLC shift errors were introduced for one prostate plan to determine the sensitivity of on-treatment QA. For pretreatment and on-treatment QA, a gamma analysis (2%/1mm/20%) was performed and dosimetric values of PTV and OARs were ascertained in SciMoCa.Results: Plausibility check of TPS Monaco vs. BP measurement and SciMoCa vs. BP measurement showed valid accuracy for clinical VMAT QA. Using SciMoCa, there was no significant difference in PTV Dmean between RT plan and RT log file plan.Between pretreatment and on-treatment QA, PTV metrics, femur right and left showed no significant dosimetric differences as opposed to OARs rectum and bladder. The overall gamma passing rate (GPR) ranged from 96.10% to 100% in pretreatment QA and from 93.50% to 99.80% in on-treatment QA. MLC shift errors were identified for deviations larger than −0.50 mm and +0.75 mm using overall gamma criterion and PTV Dmean. Conclusion:SciMoCa calculations of Monaco RT plans and RT log file plans are in excellent agreement to each other. Therefore, 4-Hz log files and SciMoCa can replace labor-intensive phantom-based measurements as patient-specific QA.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: D | Plan Delivery and Log File Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%