AAPM Task Group Report 306: Quality control and assurance for tomotherapy: An update to Task Group Report 148.

Since the publication of AAPM Task Group (TG) 148 on quality assurance (QA) for helical tomotherapy, there have been many new developments on the tomotherapy platform involving treatment delivery, on-board imaging options, motion management, and treatment planning systems (TPSs). In response to a need for guidance on quality control (QC) and QA for these technologies, the AAPM Therapy Physics Committee commissioned TG 306 to review these changes and make recommendations related to these technology updates. The specific objectives of this TG were (1) to update, as needed, recommendations on tolerance limits, frequencies and QC/QA testing methodology in TG 148, (2) address the commissioning and necessary QA checks, as a supplement to Medical Physics Practice Guidelines (MPPG) with respect to tomotherapy TPS and (3) to provide risk-based recommendations on the new technology implemented clinically and treatment delivery workflow. Detailed recommendations on QA tests and their tolerance levels are provided for dynamic jaws, binary multileaf collimators, and Synchrony motion management. A subset of TPS commissioning and QA checks in MPPG 5.a. applicable to tomotherapy are recommended. In addition, failure mode and effects analysis has been conducted among TG members to obtain multi-institutional analysis on tomotherapy-related failure modes and their effect ranking.

Accuracy of TomoEDGE dynamic jaw field widths.

Dynamic jaw delivery on the TomoTherapy H-series platform, entitled TomoEDGE™, is an effective tool to decrease the patient dose along the superior and inferior edges of the treatment target. The aperture of the TomoTherapy jaws, that is, field width (FW), defines the longitudinal dose profile. A consistent FW dose profile is an important quantity for accurate and reproducible dose delivery in TomoTherapy. To date, no evaluation has been made of the accuracy and precision of the dose profiles produced by dynamic jaws. This study aims to provide a long-term evaluation of the dynamic jaw FW dose profiles obtained on TomoTherapy utilizing the TomoTherapy Quality Assurance procedure (TQA). A total of 840 dose profiles were measured during 84 TQA procedures, performed over a 2-yr period. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) and constancy of the FW dose profile measurements were analyzed and compared with the tolerances proposed by AAPM Task Group 148 (TG-148) and those used by the manufacturer. The FWHM evaluation showed that the FWs > 2.0 cm respect the TG-148 tolerance of 1%, while the asymmetric FWs ≤ 2.0 cm were outside the limit in 17.3% of measurements. Constancy results evaluated along the full profiles showed that 95.2% of measurements were within 3% of the baseline for symmetric FWs and 94.8% of measurements were within 4% of the baseline for asymmetric FWs. In conclusion, the analysis confirms the accuracy and precision of TomoEDGE™ technology in jaw positioning. This study has identified the potential to establish an appropriate QA tolerance for the asymmetric FWs used in dynamic jaw movement. Finally, the clinical significance of the observed discrepancies should be studied further to understand the dosimetric effect on patient treatments.