The sliding slit test for dynamic IMRT: a useful tool for adjustment of MLC related parameters

A novel methodology for the optimization of transmission and dosimetric leaf gap parameters

PURPOSE

Optimization of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and transmission is commonly performed through a manual trial and error process, which can lead to sub-optimal values. The purpose of this work is to create an alternative automated optimization process that provides the optimal DLG and transmission pair for use in a clinical setting.

METHODS

Utilizing the treatment planning system application programming interface, a phase space of clinically viable DLG and transmission pairs was generated. The phase space contained 51,051 dose planes for DLGs between 0.0  and 2.5 mm and transmission values between 0.01% and 2.5%. Thirteen plans were measured for multiple multileaf collimator types and nominal beam energies. The optimization minimized the mean γ-index and maximized the γ-index pass rate. The optimized values were validated using five plans excluded from the optimization.

RESULTS

Of the nominal beam energies and multileaf collimator system (MLC)-type combinations tested, 6/7 showed an increase in γ-index pass rate and a decrease in mean γ-index signifying better agreement between measurement and calculation. When comparing the optimized DLG and transmission values to the clinically implemented values identified via an iterative method, 5/7 energy, and MLC type combinations showed no statistically significant changes. In addition, the optimized values were benchmarked against three Task Group 119 plans with published γ-index pass rates, which had been held out of the optimization. For those plans, the optimized DLG and transmission values provided the same or better γ-index pass rates.

CONCLUSION

We presented a novel and viable automated alternative to current approaches of selecting the DLG and transmission parameters. This method will reduce the time required to determine the clinically acceptable DLG and transmission parameters and ensure optimality for the plans included in the optimization.

Relationship between dosimetric leaf gap and dose calculation errors for high definition multi-leaf collimators in radiotherapy

Background and purpose

Dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is a parameter to model the round-leaf-end effect of multi-leaf collimators (MLC) that is important for treatment planning dose calculations in radiotherapy. In this study we investigated on the relationship between the DLG values and the dose calculation errors for a high-definition MLC.

Materials and methods

Three sets of experiments were conducted: (1) physical DLG measurements using sweeping-gap technique, (2) DLG adjustment based on spine radiosurgery plan measurements, and (3) DLG verification using films and ion-chambers (IC). All experiments were conducted on a Varian Edge machine equipped with HD120 MLC for 6X, 6XFFF, and 10XFFF (FFF: flattening filter free). The Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm was used for all dose calculations.

Results

The measured physical DLGs were 0.39 mm, 0.27 mm, and 0.42 mm for 6X, 6XFFF, and 10XFFF respectively. The calculated doses were lower by 4.2% (6X), 3.7% (6XFFF), and 6.8% (10XFFF) than the measured, while the adjusted DLG values with minimum errors were 1.1 mm, 0.9 mm, and 1.5 mm. The IC measurement errors were < 1%, and the film gamma pass rates (3%/3 mm) were greater than 97% for the spine plans.

Conclusions

The calculated doses were systematically lower than measured doses with the physical DLG values. It was necessary to increase the DLG values to minimize the dose calculation uncertainty. The optimal DLG values may be specific to individual MLCs and beams and, thus, careful evaluation and verification are warranted.

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

Purpose

To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.

Methods

Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.

Results

The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases.

Conclusion

Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

The dosimetric impact of control point spacing for sliding gap MLC fields

Dynamic sliding gap multileaf collimator (MLC) fields are used to model MLC properties within the treatment planning system (TPS) for dynamic treatments. One of the key MLC properties in the Eclipse TPS is the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and precise determination of this parameter is paramount to ensuring accurate dose delivery. In this investigation, we report on how the spacing between control points (CPs) for sliding gap fields impacts the dose delivery, MLC positioning accuracy, and measurement of the DLG. The central axis dose was measured for sliding gap MLC fields with gap widths ranging from 2 to 40 mm. It was found that for deliveries containing two CPs, the central axis dose was underestimated by the TPS for all gap widths, with the maximum difference being 8% for a 2 mm gap field. For the same sliding gap fields containing 50 CPs, the measured dose was always within ±2% of the TPS dose. By directly measuring the MLC trajectories we show that this dose difference is due to a systematic MLC gap error for fields containing two CPs, and that the cause of this error is due to the leaf position offset table which is incorrectly applied when the spacing between CPs is too large. This MLC gap error resulted in an increase in the measured DLG of 0.5 mm for both 6 MV and 10 MV, when using fields with 2 CPs compared to 50 CPs. Furthermore, this change in DLG was shown to decrease the mean TPS‐calculated dose to the target volume by 2.6% for a clinical IMRT test plan. This work has shown that systematic MLC positioning errors occur for sliding gap MLC fields containing two CPs and that using these fields to model critical TPS parameters, such as the DLG, may result in clinically significant systematic dose calculation errors during subsequent dynamic MLC treatments.

PACS number(s): 87.56.nk

Twin machines validation for VMAT treatments using electronic portal-imaging device: a multicenter study

Purpose

To verify the accuracy of volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) using the RapidArc™ device when switching patients from one single linear accelerator (linac) to a paired energy and mechanics "twin" linac without reoptimization of the original treatment plan.

Patients and Methods

Four centers using 8 linacs were involved in this study. Seventy-four patients previously treated with the 6MV photon RapidArc™ technique were selected for analysis, using 242 measurements. In each institution, all patients were planned on linac A, and their plans were verified both on linac A and on the twin linac B. Verifications were done using the amorphous silicium electronic portal imager (EPID) of the linacs and were analyzed with the EpiQa software (Epidos, Bratislavia, Slovakia). The gamma index formalism was used for validation with a double threshold of 3 % and 3 mm with a measurement resolution of 0.39 mm/pixel, and a smoothed resolution of approximately 2.5 mm.

Results

The number of points passing the gamma criteria between the measured and computed doses was 94.79 ± 2.57 % for linac A and 94.61 ± 2.46 % for linac B. Concerning the smoothed measurement analysis, 98.67 ± 1.26 % and 98.59 ± 1.20 % points passing the threshold were obtained for linacs A and B, respectively.

The difference between the 2 dose matrices acquired on the EPID was very small, with 99.92 ± 0.06 % of the points passing the criteria.

Conclusion

For linacs sharing the same mechanical and energy parameters, this study tends to indicate that patients may be safely switched from treatment with one linac to treatment with its twin linac using the same VMAT plan.

Spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap and its impact on dose delivery

PURPOSE

During dose calculation, the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) retracts the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions by half of the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value (measured at central axis) for all leaf positions in a dynamic MLC plan to accurately model the rounded leaf ends. The aim of this study is to map the variation of DLG along the travel path of each MLC leaf pair and quantify how this variation impacts delivered dose.

METHODS

6 MV DLG values were measured for all MLC leaf pairs in increments of 1.0 cm (from the line intersecting the CAX and perpendicular to MLC motion) to 13.0 cm off axis distance at dmax. The measurements were performed on two Varian linear accelerators, both employing the Millennium 120-leaf MLCs. The measurements were performed at several locations in the beam with both a Sun Nuclear MapCHECK device and a PTW pinpoint ion chamber.

RESULTS

The measured DLGs for the middle 40 MLC leaf pairs (each 0.5 cm width) at positions along a line through the CAX and perpendicular to MLC leaf travel direction were very similar, varying maximally by only 0.2 mm. The outer 20 MLC leaf pairs (each 1.0 cm width) have much lower DLG values, about 0.3-0.5 mm lower than the central MLC leaf pair, at their respective central line position. Overall, the mean and the maximum variation between the 0.5 cm width leaves and the 1.0 cm width leaf pairs are 0.32 and 0.65 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The spatial variation in DLG is caused by the variation of intraleaf transmission through MLC leaves. Fluences centered on the CAX would not be affected since DLG does not vary; but any fluences residing significantly off axis with narrow sweeping leaves may exhibit significant dose differences. This is due to the fact that there are differences in DLG between the true DLG exhibited by the 1.0 cm width outer leaves and the constant DLG value utilized by the TPS for dose calculation. Since there are large differences in DLG between the 0.5 cm width leaf pairs and 1.0 cm width leaf pairs, there is a need to correct the TPS plans, especially those with high modulation (narrow dynamic MLC gap), with 2D variation of DLG.

Characteristics of a novel treatment system for linear accelerator-based stereotactic radiosurgery

The purpose of this study is to characterize the dosimetric properties and accuracy of a novel treatment platform (Edge radiosurgery system) for localizing and treating patients with frameless, image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Initial measurements of various components of the system, such as a comprehensive assessment of the dosimetric properties of the flattening filter-free (FFF) beams for both high definition (HD120) MLC and conical cone-based treatment, positioning accuracy and beam attenuation of a six degree of freedom (6DoF) couch, treatment head leakage test, and integrated end-to-end accuracy tests, have been performed. The end-to-end test of the system was performed by CT imaging a phantom and registering hidden targets on the treatment couch to determine the localization accuracy of the optical surface monitoring system (OSMS), cone-beam CT (CBCT), and MV imaging systems, as well as the radiation isocenter targeting accuracy. The deviations between the percent depth-dose curves acquired on the new linac-based system (Edge), and the previously published machine with FFF beams (TrueBeam) beyond D(max) were within 1.0% for both energies. The maximum deviation of output factors between the Edge and TrueBeam was 1.6%. The optimized dosimetric leaf gap values, which were fitted using Eclipse dose calculations and measurements based on representative spine radiosurgery plans, were 0.700 mm and 1.000 mm, respectively. For the conical cones, 6X FFF has sharper penumbra ranging from 1.2-1.8 mm (80%-20%) and 1.9-3.8 mm (90%-10%) relative to 10X FFF, which has 1.2-2.2mm and 2.3-5.1mm, respectively. The relative attenuation measurements of the couch for PA, PA (rails-in), oblique, oblique (rails-out), oblique (rails-in) were: -2.0%, -2.5%, -15.6%, -2.5%, -5.0% for 6X FFF and -1.4%, -1.5%, -12.2%, -2.5%, -5.0% for 10X FFF, respectively, with a slight decrease in attenuation versus field size. The systematic deviation between the OSMS and CBCT was -0.4 ± 0.2 mm, 0.1± 0.3mm, and 0.0 ± 0.1 mm in the vertical, longitudinal, and lateral directions. The mean values and standard deviations of the average deviation and maximum deviation of the daily Winston-Lutz tests over three months are 0.20 ± 0.03 mm and 0.66 ± 0.18 mm, respectively. Initial testing of this novel system demonstrates the technology to be highly accurate and suitable for frameless, linac-based SRS and SBRT treatment.

IMRT and RapidArc commissioning of a TrueBeam linear accelerator using TG-119 protocol cases

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the overall accuracy of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc delivery using both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter‐free (FFF) modalities based on test cases developed by AAPM Task Group 119. Institutional confidence limits (CLs) were established as the baseline for patient specific treatment plan quality assurance (QA). The effects of gantry range, gantry speed, leaf speed, dose rate, as well as the capability to capture intentional errors, were evaluated by measuring a series of Picket Fence (PF) tests using the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and EBT3 films. Both IMRT and RapidArc plans were created in a Solid Water phantom (30 × 30 × 15 cm3) for the TG‐119 test cases representative of normal clinical treatment sites for all five photon energies (6X, 10X, 15X, 6X‐FFF, 10X‐FFF) and the Exact IGRT couch was included in the dose calculation. One high‐dose point in the PTV and one low‐dose point in the avoidance structure were measured with an ion chamber in each case for each energy. Similarly, two GAFCHROMIC EBT3 films were placed in the coronal planes to measure planar dose distributions in both high‐ and low‐dose regions. The confidence limit was set to have 95% of the measured data fall within the tolerance. The mean of the absolute dose deviation for variable dose rate and gantry speed during RapidArc delivery was within 0.5% for all energies. The corresponding results for leaf speed tests were all within 0.4%. The combinations of dynamic leaf gap (DLG) and MLC transmission factor were optimized based on the ion chamber measurement results of RapidArc delivery for each energy. The average 95% CLs for the high‐dose point in the PTV were 0.030 ± 0.007 (range, 0.022–0.038) for the IMRT plans and 0.029 ± 0.011 (range, 0.016–0.043) for the RapidArc plans. For low‐point dose in the avoidance structures, the CLs were 0.029 ± 0.006 (range, 0.024–0.039) for the IMRT plans and 0.027 ± 0.013 (range, 0.017–0.047) for the RapidArc plans. The average 95% CLs using 3%/3 mm gamma criteria in the high‐dose region were 5.9 ± 2.7 (range, 1.4–8.6) and 3.9 ± 2.9 (range, 1.5–8.8) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. The average 95% CLs in the low‐dose region were 5.3 ± 2.6 (range, 1.2–7.4) and 3.7 ± 2.8 (range, 1.8–8.3) for IMRT and RapidArc plans, respectively. Based on ion chamber, as well as film measurements, we have established CLs values to ensure the high precision of IMRT and RapidArc delivery for both FF and FFF modalities.

PACS number: 87

First quinquennial review of intensity-modulated radiotherapy at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is a relatively new technique of delivering external beam radiotherapy that is becoming increasingly available in the UK. This paper summarises the introduction and initial clinical work in IMRT over the period 2004-2009. Physics aspects of commissioning are described, including the development of a robust method of quality control using a sweeping gap test. Details of the organisational changes necessary to introduce IMRT are given. The clinical selection and practice in head and neck sites are described, together with promising early results on the maintenance of salivary flow after IMRT. A summary of research into optimal planning for pelvic cancer follows. The controversial areas of breast and paediatric IMRT are discussed with recommendations on practice. The potential for concomitant boost therapy is exemplified in the treatment of brain metastatic disease.

Effects of multileaf collimator parameters on treatment planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy

In inverse planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the setting of multileaf collimator (MLC) parameters affects the optimization algorithms and dose distribution. We investigated the effects of varying the MLC leaf width, leaf insertion percentage, and leaf increment in treatment planning of IMRT in 3 cancer cases: nasopharynx, esophagus, and prostate. Inverse planning of the 3 cancer cases was performed using the XiO treatment planning system. MLCs with 0.5 and 1.0 cm were used to evaluate the leaf width effect, whereas leaf insertions of 20%, 50%, and 80% were used to demonstrate the effect of leaf insertion percentage, and leaf increments of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 cm were used to study the leaf increment effect. The treatment plans were evaluated by dose profiles, tumor control probability (TCP), and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). The 0.5-cm MLC leaves showed better TCPs and NTCPs than the 1.0-cm leaves in the 3 cancer cases, although the differences were less than 2.5%. For the leaf insertion percentage, the dose profile differences among the 3 levels of increments were minimal, and their differences in TCP and NTCP were extremely small (< 1.5%). The effect of leaf increment was more prominent, dose profile, TCPs, and NTCPs were best for the smallest leaf increment and they deteriorated as the leaf increment increased. Narrower leaves gave slightly better sparing of organs at risk (OAR)s; changing the leaf insertion percentage brought about negligible changes, whereas increasing the leaf increment significantly degraded the treatment plans.

An experimental investigation into the radiation field offset of a dynamic multileaf collimator

In this study we investigate the characteristics of a rounded leaf end multileaf collimator (MLC) that is used for delivering intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with a Varian linear accelerator. The rounded leaf end MLC design results in an offset between the radiation field edge (the physical leaf position) and the light field (the geometric leaf position). We call this the radiation field offset (RFO). The leaf position is calibrated to the leaf tip at the mid-leaf plane. There is an additional offset between the geometric leaf position and the projected leaf tip position that varies as a function of distance from the collimator central axis due to the MLC geometry. We call this the leaf position offset (LPO). There is a lack of consistency in the interpretation and implementation of the RFO and the LPO in the literature. We investigated the RFO and the LPO on Varian's 600 C/D and 21 EX linear accelerators. We used a combination of film and ion chamber measurements of static, segmental MLC (SMLC) and dynamic MLC (DMLC) fields to quantify the leaf offsets across the range of leaf positions. We were able to improve the dosimetry at large off-axis positions with minor adjustments to the vendor's LPO file. The RFO was determined to within 0.1 mm accuracy at the collimator central axis. The measured RFO value depends on whether the method is based on the radiation field edge position or on an integral dose measurement. The integral dose method results in an RFO that is approximately 0.2 mm greater than the radiation field edge method. The difference is due to the MLC penumbra shape. We propose a methodology for measuring and implementing MLC leaf offsets that is suitable for both SMLC and DMLC IMRT. In addition, we propose some definitions that more clearly describe the MLC leaf position for accurate IMRT dosimetry.