Verification of a rounded leaf-end MLC model used in a radiotherapy treatment planning system

Challenges in modeling the Agility multileaf collimator in treatment planning systems and current needs for improvement

BACKGROUND

The Agility multileaf collimator (MLC) mounted in Elekta linear accelerators features some unique design characteristics, such as large leaf thickness, eccentric curvature at the leaf tip, and defocused leaf sides ('tilting'). These characteristics offer several advantages but modeling them in treatment planning systems (TPSs) is challenging.

PURPOSE

The goals of this study were to investigate the challenges faced when modeling the Agility in two commercial TPSs (Monaco and RayStation) and to explore how the implemented MLC models could be improved in the future.

METHODS

Four linear accelerators equipped with the Agility, located at different centers, were used for the study. Three centers use the RayStation TPS and the other one uses Monaco. For comparison purposes, data from four Varian linear accelerators with the Millennium 120 MLC were also included. Average doses measured with asynchronous sweeping gap tests were used to characterize and compare the characteristics of the Millennium and the Agility MLCs and to assess the MLC model in the TPSs. The FOURL test included in the ExpressQA package, provided by Elekta, was also used to evaluate the tongue-and-groove with radiochromic films. Finally, raytracing was used to investigate the impact of the MLC geometry and to understand the results obtained for each MLC.

RESULTS

The geometry of the Agility produces dosimetric effects associated with the rounded leaf end up to a distance 20 mm away from the leaf tip end measured at the isocenter plane. This affects the tongue-and-groove shadowing, which progressively increases along the distance to the tip end. The RayStation and Monaco TPSs did not account for this effect, which made trade-offs in the MLC parameters necessary and greatly varied the final MLC parameters used by different centers. Raytracing showed that these challenging leaf tip effects were directly related to the MLC geometry and that the characteristics mainly responsible for the large leaf tip effects of the Agility were its tilting design and its small source-to-collimator distance.

CONCLUSIONS

The MLC models implemented in RayStation and Monaco could not accurately reproduce the leaf tip effects for the Agility. Therefore, trade-offs are needed and the optimal MLC parameters are dependent on the specific characteristics of treatment plans. Refining the MLC models for the Agility to better approximate the measured leaf tip and tongue-and-groove effects would extend the validity of the MLC model, reduce the variability in the MLC parameters used by the community, and facilitate the standardization of the MLC configuration process.

Static MLC transmission simulation using two-dimensional ray tracing

Purpose

We investigated the hypothesis that the transmission function of rounded end linearly traveling multileaf collimators (MLCs) is constant with position. This assumption is made by some MLC models used in clinical treatment planning systems (TPSs) and in the Varian MLC calibration convention. If not constant, this would have implications for treatment plan QA results.

Methods

A two‐dimensional ray‐tracing tool to generate transmission curves as a function of leaf position was created and validated. The curves for clinically available leaf tip positions (−20 to 20 cm) were analyzed to determine the location of the beam edge (half‐attenuation X‐ray [XR]) location, the beam edge broadening (BEB, 80%–20% width), as well as the leaf tip zone width. More generalized scenarios were then simulated to elucidate trends as a function of leaf tip radius.

Results

In the analysis of the Varian high‐definition MLC, two regions were identified: a quasi‐static inner region centered about central axis (CAX), and an outer one, in which large deviations were observed. A phenomenon was identified where the half‐attenuation ray position, relative to that of the tip or tangential ray, increases dramatically at definitive points from CAX. Similar behavior is seen for BEB. An analysis shows that as the leaf radius parameter value is made smaller, the size of the quasi‐static region is greater (and vice versa).

Conclusion

The MLC transmission curve properties determined by this study have implications both for MLC position calibrations and modeling within TPSs. Two‐dimensional ray tracing can be utilized to identify where simple behaviors hold, and where they deviate. These results can help clinical physicists engage with vendors to improve MLC models, subsequent fluence calculations, and hence dose calculation accuracy.

A novel procedure for determining the optimal MLC configuration parameters in treatment planning systems based on measurements with a Farmer chamber

Modelling of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) in treatment planning systems (TPS) is crucial for the dose calculation accuracy of intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans. However, no standardised methodology for their configuration exists to date. In this study we present a method that separates the effect of each dosimetric characteristic of the MLC, offering comprehensive equations for the determination of the configuration parameters used in the TPS model. The main advantage of the method is that it only requires prior knowledge of the nominal leaf width and is based on doses measured with a Farmer chamber, which is a very well established and robust methodology. Another significant advantage is the required time, since measuring the tests takes only about 30 minutes per energy. Firstly, we provide a theoretical general formalism in terms of the primary fluence constructed from the transmission map obtained from an MLC model for synchronous and asynchronous sweeping beams. Secondly, we apply the formalism to the RayStation TPS as a proof of concept and we derive analytical expressions that allow the determination of the configuration parameters (leaf tip width, tongue-and-groove width, x-position offset and MLC transmission) and describe how they intertwine. Finally, we apply the method to Varian's Millennium120 and HD120 MLCs in a TrueBeam linear accelerator for different energies and determine the optimal configuration parameters. The proposed procedure is much faster and streamlined than the typical trial-and-error methods and increases the accuracy of dose calculation in clinical plans. Additionally, the procedure can be useful for standardising the MLC configuration process and it exposes the limitations of the implemented MLC model, providing guidance for further improvement of these models in TPSs.

Evaluation of MLC leaf transmission on IMRT treatment plan quality of patients with advanced lung cancer

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the impact of leaf treatment of multileaf collimator (MLC) in plan quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of patients with advanced lung cancer. Five MLCs with different leaf transmissions (0.01%, 0.5%, 1.2%, 1.8%, and 3%) were configured for an accelerator in a treatment planning system. Correspondingly, 5 treatment plans with the same optimization setting were created and evaluated quantitatively for each patient (11 patients total) who was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. All of the 5 plans for each patient met the dose requirement for the planning treatment volumes (PTVs) and had similar target dose homogeneity and conformity. On average, the doses to selected organs were as follows: (1) V₅, V₂₀, and the mean dose of total lung; (2) the maximum and mean dose to spinal cord planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV); and (3) V₃₀ and V₄₀ of heart, decreased slightly when MLC transmission was decreased, but with no statistical differences. There is a clear grouping of plans having total quality score (S_D) value, which is used to evaluate plan quality: (1) more than 1 (patient nos. 1 to 3, 5, and 8), and more than 2.5 (patient no. 6); (2) less than 1 (patient nos. 7 and 10); (3) around 1 (patient nos. 4, 9, and 11). As MLC transmission increased, overall S_D values increased as well and plan dose requirement was harder to meet. The clinical requirements were violated increasingly as MLC transmission became large. Total S_D with and without normal tissue (NT) showed similar results, with no statistically significant differences. Therefore, decrease of MLC transmission did have minimum impact on plan, and it improved target coverage and reduced normal tissue radiation slightly, with no statistical significance. Plan quality could not be significantly improved by MLC transmission reduction. However, lower MLC transmission may have advantages on lung sparing to low- and intermediate-dose exposure. Besides conventional fraction, hyperfraction, or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), the reduction on lung sparing is still essential because it is highly relevant to radiation pneumonitis (RP). It has potential to diminish incidence of RP and improve patient's quality of life after irradiation with lowered MLC transmission.

Rounded leaf end modeling in Pinnacle VMAT treatment planning for fixed jaw linacs

During volume-modulated arc therapies (VMAT), dosimetric errors are introduced by multiple open dynamic leaf gaps that are present in fixed diaphragm linear accelerators. The purpose of this work was to develop a methodology for adjusting the rounded leaf end modeling parameters to improve out-of-field dose agreement in SmartArc VMAT treatment plans delivered by fixed jaw linacs where leaf gap dose is not negligible. Leaf gap doses were measured for an Elekta beam modulator linac with 0.4 cm micro-multileaf collimators (MLC) using an A16 micro-ionization chamber, a MatriXX ion chamber detector array, and Kodak EDR2 film dosimetry in a solid water phantom. The MLC offset and rounded end tip radius were adjusted in the Pinnacle treatment planning system (TPS) to iteratively arrive at the optimal configuration for 6 MV and 10 MV photon energies. Improvements in gamma index with a 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria and an inclusion threshold of 5% of maximum dose were measured, analyzed, and validated using an ArcCHECK diode detector array for field sizes ranging from 1.6 to 14 cm square field arcs and Task Group (TG) 119 VMAT test cases. The best results were achieved for a rounded leaf tip radius of 13 cm with a 0.1 cm MLC offset. With the optimized MLC model, measured gamma indices ranged between 99.9% and 91.7% for square field arcs with sizes between 3.6 cm and 1.6 cm, with a maximum improvement of 42.7% for the 1.6 cm square field size. Gamma indices improved up to 2.8% in TG-119 VMAT treatment plans. Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) credentialing of a VMAT plan with the head and neck phantom passed with a gamma index of 100%. Fine-tune adjustments to MLC rounded leaf ends may improve patient-specific QA pass rates and provide more accurate predictions of dose deposition to avoidance structures.

Optimizing the MLC model parameters for IMRT in the RayStation treatment planning system

Unlike other commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) which model the rounded leaf end differently (such as the MLC dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) or rounded leaf‐tip radius), the RayStation TPS (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) models transmission through the rounded leaf end of the MLC with a step function, in which the radiation transmission through the leaf end is the square root of the average MLC transmission factor. We report on the optimization of MLC model parameters for the RayStation planning system. This (TPS) models the rounded leaf end of the MLC with the following parameters: leaf‐tip offset, leaf‐tip width, average transmission factor, and tongue and groove. We optimized the MLC model parameters for IMRT in the RayStation v. 4.0 planning system and for a Varian C‐series linac with a 120‐leaf Millennium MLC, and validated the model using measured data. The leaf‐tip offset is the geometric offset due to the rounded leaf‐end design and resulting divergence of the light/radiation field. The offset value is a function of the leaf‐tip position, and tabulated data are available from the vendor. The leaf‐tip width was iteratively evaluated by comparing computed and measured transverse dose profiles of MLC defined fields at dmax in water. In‐water profile comparisons were also used to verify the MLC leaf position (leaf‐tip offset). The average transmission factor and leaf tongue‐and‐groove width were derived iteratively by maximizing the agreement between measurements and RayStation TPS calculations for five clinical IMRT QA plans. Plan verifications were performed by comparing MapCHECK2 measurements and Monte Carlo calculations. The MLC model was validated using five test IMRT cases from the AAPM Task Group 119 report. Absolute gamma analyses (3 mm/3% and 2 mm/2%) were applied. In addition, computed output factors for MLC‐defined small fields (2×2,3×3,4×4,6×6 cm2) of both 6 MV and 18 MV photons were compared to those independently measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC), Houston, TX. 6 MV and 18 MV models were both determined to have the same MLC parameters: leaf‐tip offset=0.3 cm,2.5% transmission, and leaf tongue‐and‐groove width=0.05 cm. IMRT QA analysis for five test cases in TG‐119 resulted in a 100% passing rate with 3 mm/3% gamma analysis for 6 MV, and >97.5% for 18 MV. The passing rate was >94.6% for 6 MV and >90.9% for 18 MV when the 2 mm/2% gamma analysis criteria was applied. These results compared favorably with those published in AAPM Task Group 119. The reported MLC model parameters serve as a reference for other users.

PACS number(s): 87.55.D, 87.56.nk

ROC analysis in patient specific quality assurance

PURPOSE

This work investigates the use of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methods in patient specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) in order to determine unbiased methods to set threshold criteria for γ-distance to agreement measurements.

METHODS

A group of 17 prostate plans was delivered as planned while a second group of 17 prostate plans was modified with the introduction of random multileaf collimator (MLC) position errors that are normally distributed with σ ≈ ± 0.5, ± 1.0, ± 2.0, and ± 3.0 mm (a total of 68 modified plans were created). All plans were evaluated using five different γ-criteria. ROC methodology was applied by quantifying the fraction of modified plans reported as "fail" and unmodified plans reported as "pass."

RESULTS

γ-based criteria were able to attain nearly 100% sensitivity/specificity in the detection of large random errors (σ > 3 mm). Sensitivity and specificity decrease rapidly for all γ-criteria as the size of error to be detected decreases below 2 mm. Predictive power is null with all criteria used in the detection of small MLC errors (σ < 0.5 mm). Optimal threshold values were established by determining which criteria maximized sensitivity and specificity. For 3%/3 mm γ-criteria, optimal threshold values range from 92% to 99%, whereas for 2%/2 mm, the range was from 77% to 94%.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal threshold values that were determined represent a maximized test sensitivity and specificity and are not subject to any user bias. When applied to the datasets that we studied, our results suggest the use of patient specific QA as a safety tool that can effectively prevent large errors (e.g., σ > 3 mm) as opposed to a tool to improve the quality of IMRT delivery.

Evaluation of a new VMAT QA device, or the "X" and "O" array geometries

We introduce a logical process of three distinct phases to begin the evaluation of a new 3D dosimetry array. The array under investigation is a hollow cylinder phantom with diode detectors fixed in a helical shell forming an “O” axial detector cross section (ArcCHECK), with comparisons drawn to a previously studied 3D array with diodes fixed in two crossing planes forming an “X” axial cross section (Delta⁴). Phase I testing of the ArcCHECK establishes: robust relative calibration (response equalization) of the individual detectors, minor field size dependency of response not present in a 2D predecessor, and uncorrected angular response dependence in the axial plane. Phase II testing reveals vast differences between the two devices when studying fixed‐width full circle arcs. These differences are primarily due to arc discretization by the TPS that produces low passing rates for the peripheral detectors of the ArcCHECK, but high passing rates for the Delta⁴. Similar, although less pronounced, effects are seen for the test VMAT plans modeled after the AAPM TG119 report. The very different 3D detector locations of the two devices, along with the knock‐on effect of different percent normalization strategies, prove that the analysis results from the devices are distinct and noninterchangeable; they are truly measuring different things. The value of what each device measures, namely their correlation with – or ability to predict – clinically relevant errors in calculation and/or delivery of dose is the subject of future Phase III work.

PACS number: 87.55Qr

Helical tomotherapy versus single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy: a collaborative dosimetric comparison between two institutions

PURPOSE

Both helical tomotherapy (HT) and single-arc intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT) deliver radiation using rotational beams with multileaf collimators. We report a dual-institution study comparing dosimetric aspects of these two modalities.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eight patients each were selected from the University of Maryland (UMM) and the University of Wisconsin Cancer Center Riverview (UWR), for a total of 16 cases. Four cancer sites including brain, head and neck (HN), lung, and prostate were selected. Single-arc IMAT plans were generated at UMM using Varian RapidArc (RA), and HT plans were generated at UWR using Hi-Art II TomoTherapy. All 16 cases were planned based on the identical anatomic contours, prescriptions, and planning objectives. All plans were swapped for analysis at the same time after final approval. Dose indices for targets and critical organs were compared based on dose-volume histograms, the beam-on time, monitor units, and estimated leakage dose. After the disclosure of comparison results, replanning was done for both techniques to minimize diversity in optimization focus from different operators.

RESULTS

For the 16 cases compared, the average beam-on time was 1.4 minutes for RA and 4.8 minutes for HT plans. HT provided better target dose homogeneity (7.6% for RA and 4.2% for HT) with a lower maximum dose (110% for RA and 105% for HT). Dose conformation numbers were comparable, with RA being superior to HT (0.67 vs. 0.60). The doses to normal tissues using these two techniques were comparable, with HT showing lower doses for more critical structures. After planning comparison results were exchanged, both techniques demonstrated improvements in dose distributions or treatment delivery times.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques created highly conformal plans that met or exceeded the planning goals. The delivery time and total monitor units were lower in RA than in HT plans, whereas HT provided higher target dose uniformity.

Validation of Pinnacle treatment planning system for use with Novalis delivery unit

For an institution that already owns the licenses, it is economically advantageous and technically feasible to use Pinnacle TPS (Philips Radiation Oncology Systems, Fitchburg, WI) with the BrainLab Novalis delivery system (BrainLAB A.G., Heimstetten, Germany). This takes advantage of the improved accuracy of the convolution algorithm in the presence of heterogeneities compared with the pencil beam calculation, which is particularly significant for lung SBRT treatments. The reference patient positioning DRRs still have to be generated by the BrainLab software from the CT images and isocenter coordinates transferred from Pinnacle. We validated this process with the end-to-end hidden target test, which showed an isocenter positioning error within one standard deviation from the previously established mean value. The Novalis treatment table attenuation is substantial (up to 6.2% for a beam directed straight up and up to 8.4% for oblique incidence) and has to be accounted for in calculations. A simple single-contour treatment table model was developed, resulting in mean differences between the measured and calculated attenuation factors of 0.0%-0.2%, depending on the field size. The maximum difference for a single incidence angle is 1.1%. The BrainLab micro-MLC (mMLC) leaf tip, although not geometrically round, can be represented in Pinnacle by an arch with satisfactory dosimetric accuracy. Subsequently, step-and-shoot (direct machine parameter optimization) IMRT dosimetric agreement is excellent. VMAT (called "SmartArc" in Pinnacle) treatments with constant gantry speed and dose rate are feasible without any modifications to the accelerator. Due to the 3 mm-wide mMLC leaves, the use of a 2 mm calculation grid is recommended. When dual arcs are used for the more complex cases, the overall dosimetric agreement for the SmartArc plans compares favorably with the previously reported results for other implementations of VMAT: gamma(3%,3mm) for absolute dose obtained with the biplanar diode array passing rates above 97% with the mean of 98.6%. However, a larger than expected dose error with the single-arc plans, confined predominantly to the isocenter region, requires further investigation.

A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry

Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) have been the preferred tools for verification of patient positioning for radiotherapy in recent decades. Since EPID images contain dose information, many groups have investigated their use for radiotherapy dose measurement. With the introduction of the amorphous-silicon EPIDs, the interest in EPID dosimetry has been accelerated because of the favourable characteristics such as fast image acquisition, high resolution, digital format, and potential for in vivo measurements and 3D dose verification. As a result, the number of publications dealing with EPID dosimetry has increased considerably over the past approximately 15 years. The purpose of this paper was to review the information provided in these publications. Information available in the literature included dosimetric characteristics and calibration procedures of various types of EPIDs, strategies to use EPIDs for dose verification, clinical approaches to EPID dosimetry, ranging from point dose to full 3D dose distribution verification, and current clinical experience. Quality control of a linear accelerator, pre-treatment dose verification and in vivo dosimetry using EPIDs are now routinely used in a growing number of clinics. The use of EPIDs for dosimetry purposes has matured and is now a reliable and accurate dose verification method that can be used in a large number of situations. Methods to integrate 3D in vivo dosimetry and image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) procedures, such as the use of kV or MV cone-beam CT, are under development. It has been shown that EPID dosimetry can play an integral role in the total chain of verification procedures that are implemented in a radiotherapy department. It provides a safety net for simple to advanced treatments, as well as a full account of the dose delivered. Despite these favourable characteristics and the vast range of publications on the subject, there is still a lack of commercially available solutions for EPID dosimetry. As strategies evolve and commercial products become available, EPID dosimetry has the potential to become an accurate and efficient means of large-scale patient-specific IMRT dose verification for any radiotherapy department.

Development of an optimum photon beam model for head and-neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy

Intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for complex sites such as tumors of the head and neck requires a level of accuracy in dose calculation beyond that currently used for conformal treatment planning. Recent advances in treatment planning systems have aimed to improve the dose calculation accuracy by improving the modeling of machine characteristics such as interleaf leakage, tongue and groove, and rounded multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf ends. What is uncertain is the extent to which these model parameters improve the agreement between dose calculation and measurements for IMRT treatments.

We used Pinnacle version 7.4f (Philips Medical Systems, Andover, MA) to carry out optimization of additional photon‐beam model parameters for both an Elekta Precise (Elekta, Stockholm, Sweden) and a Varian (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) linear accelerator (LINAC). One additional parameter was added to the beam models in turn, and associated models were commissioned to investigate the dosimetric impact of each model parameter on 5 clinical head‐and‐neck IMRT plans. The magnitude and location of differences between the models was determined from gamma analysis of the calculated planar dose maps. A final model that incorporated all of the changes was then commissioned. For the Elekta Precise, the impact of all the changes was determined using a gamma analysis as compared with measured films.

Cumulative differences of up to more than 3%/3 mm were observed when dose distributions with and without all of the model changes were compared. Individually, for both LINACs, the addition of modeling for the rounded MLC leaf ends caused the most dramatic change to the calculation of the dose distribution, generating a difference of 3%/3 mm in up to 5% of pixels for the 5 patient plans sampled. The effect of tongue‐and‐groove modeling was more significant for the Varian LINAC (at 1%/1 mm, mean of 25% of pixels as compared with 5% of pixels with the Elekta Precise LINAC). The combined changes to the Elekta model were found to improve agreement with measurement.

Current commercially available treatment planning systems offer accuracy sufficient for clinical implementation of head‐and‐neck IMRT. For this treatment site, the ability to accurately model the rounded MLC leaf ends has the greatest affect on the similarity of the calculated dose distribution to measurements. In addition, for the Varian LINAC, modeling of the tongue‐and‐groove effect was also advantageous.

PACS numbers: 87.53.‐j, 87.53.Bn, 87.53.Tf

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.