Abstract
Version 6.3 of the RITG148+ software package offers eight automated analysis routines for quality assurance of the TomoTherapy platform. A performance evaluation of each routine was performed in order to compare RITG148+ results with traditionally accepted analysis techniques and verify that simulated changes in machine parameters are correctly identified by the software. Reference films were exposed according to AAPM TG-148 methodology for each routine and the RITG148+ results were compared with either alternative software analysis techniques or manual analysis techniques in order to assess baseline agreement. Changes in machine performance were simulated through translational and rotational adjustments to subsequently irradiated films, and these films were analyzed to verify that the applied changes were accurately detected by each of the RITG148+ routines. For the Hounsfield unit routine, an assessment of the "Frame Averaging" functionality and the effects of phantom roll on the routine results are presented. All RITG148+ routines reported acceptable baseline results consistent with alternative analysis techniques, with 9 of the 11 baseline test results showing agreement of 0.1mm/0.1° or better. Simulated changes were correctly identified by the RITG148+ routines within approximately 0.2 mm/0.2° with the exception of the Field Centervs. Jaw Setting routine, which was found to have limited accuracy in cases where field centers were not aligned for all jaw settings due to inaccurate autorotation of the film during analysis. The performance of the RITG148+ software package was found to be acceptable for introduction into our clinical environment as an automated alternative to traditional analysis techniques for routine TomoTherapy quality assurance testing.