A delivery quality assurance tool based on the actual leaf open times in tomotherapy.

PURPOSE To validate a delivery quality assurance (DQA) protocol for tomotherapy based on the measurement of the leaf open times (LOTs). In addition, to show the correlation between the mean relative LOT discrepancy and the dose deviation in the planning target volume (PTV). MATERIALS AND METHODS We used a LOT measurement algorithm presented in a previous work on our two tomotherapy treatment units (TOMO1 and TOMO2). We generated TomoPhant plans with intentional random LOT discrepancies following Gaussian distributions of -6 %, -4 %, -2 %, 2 %, 4 %, and 6 %. We irradiated them on the Cheese Phantom with two ion chambers and collected the raw data on both our treatment units. Using the raw data, we measured the actual LOTs and verified that the induced discrepancies were highlightable. Then we calculated the actual dose using Accuray's standalone dose calculator and verified that the calculated dose agreed with the ion chamber measurement. We randomly chose 60 clinical treatment plans, delivered them in air, and collected the raw detector data. We measured the actual LOTs from the raw data and calculated the corresponding dose distributions using Accuray's standalone dose calculator. We assessed the Pearson coefficient correlation of the deviation between expected and actual dose in the PTV (i) with the mean relative LOT discrepancy and (ii) with the γ-index pass rate for different tolerances. RESULTS The mean relative discrepancy between actual (measured by the algorithm) and expected LOTs on the modified TomoPhant plans was 1.10±0.05 % on TOMO1 and 0.02±0.03 % on TOMO2, respectively. The agreement between measured and calculated dose was 0.2±0.3 % on TOMO1 and 0.1 ± 0.3 % on TOMO2, respectively. On clinical plans, the means of the relative LOT discrepancies ranged from -3.0 % to 1.4 %. The dose deviation in the PTVs ranged from -1.6 % to 2.4 %. The Pearson coefficient correlation between the mean relative LOT discrepancy and the dose deviation in the PTV was 0.76 (p ≈ 10-15 ) on TOMO1 and 0.65 (p ≈ 10-10 ) on TOMO2, respectively. There was no correlation between the γ-index pass rate and the dose deviation in the PTV. CONCLUSION The method made it possible to measure and to correctly highlight the LOT discrepancies on the TomoPhant plans. The dose subsequently calculated was accurate. On clinical plans, the mean LOT discrepancy correlated with the dose deviation in the PTV. This makes the mean LOT discrepancy a handy indicator of the plan quality.