ABSTRACT
Recent technological advances have allowed the possibility of performing patient-specific quality assurance (QA) without time-intensive measurements. The objectives of this study are to: (1) compare how well the log file-based Mobius QA system agrees with measurement-based QA methods (ArcCHECK and portal dosimetry, PD) in passing and failing plans, and; (2) evaluate their error sensitivities. To these ends, ten phantom plans and 100 patient plans were measured with ArcCHECK and PD on VitalBeam, while log files were sent to Mobius for dose recalculation. Gamma evaluation was performed using criteria 3%/2 mm, per TG218 recommendations, and non-inferiority of the Mobius recalculation was determined with statistical testing. Ten random plans were edited to include systematic errors, then subjected to QA. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to compare error sensitivities across the QA systems, and clinical significance of the errors was determined by recalculating dose to patients. We found no significant difference between Mobius, ArcCHECK, and PD in passing plans at the TG218 action limit. Mobius showed good sensitivity to collimator and gantry errors but not MLC bank shift errors, but could flag discrepancies in treatment delivery. Systematic errors were clinically significant only at large magnitudes; such unacceptable plans did not pass QA checks at the TG218 tolerance limit. Our results show that Mobius is not inferior to existing measurement-based QA systems, and can supplement existing QA practice by detecting real-time delivery discrepancies. However, it is still important to maintain rigorous routine machine QA to ensure reliability of machine log files.
