Evaluation of MLC leaf positioning using a scanning liquid ionization chamber EPID

Machine Log File and Calibration Errors-based Patient-specific Quality Assurance (QA) for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT)

INTRODUCTION

Dose reconstructed based on linear accelerator (linac) log-files is one of the widely used solutions to perform patient-specific quality assurance (QA). However, it has a drawback that the accuracy of log-file is highly dependent on the linac calibration. The objective of the current study is to represent a new practical approach for a patient-specific QA during Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) using both log-file and calibration errors of linac.

METHODS

A total of six cases, including two head and neck neoplasms, two lung cancers, and two rectal carcinomas, were selected. The VMAT-based delivery was optimized by the TPS of Pinnacle^3 subsequently, using Elekta Synergy VMAT linac (Elekta Oncology Systems, Crawley, UK), which was equipped with 80 Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) and the energy of the ray selected at 6 MV. Clinical mode log-file of this linac was used in this study. A series of test fields validate the accuracy of log-file. Then, six plans of test cases were delivered and log-file of each was obtained. The log-file errors were added to the corresponding plans through the house script and the first reconstructed plan was obtained. Later, a series of tests were performed to evaluate the major calibration errors of the linac (dose-rate, gantry angle, MLC leaf position) and the errors were added to the first reconstruction plan to generate the second reconstruction plan. At last, all plans were imported to Pinnacle and recalculated dose distribution on patient CT and ArcCheck phantom (SUN Nuclear). For the former, both target and OAR dose differences between them were compared. For the latter, γ was evaluated by ArcCheck, and subsequently, the surface dose differences between them were performed.

RESULTS

Accuracy of log-file was validated. If error recordings in the log file were only considered, there were four arcs whose proportion of control points with gantry angle errors more than ± 1°larger than 35%. Errors of leaves within ± 0.5 mm were 95% for all arcs. The distinctness of a single control point MU was bigger, but the distinctness of cumulative MU was smaller. The maximum, minimum, and mean doses for all targets were distributed between -6.79E-02-0.42%, -0.38-0.4%, 2.69E-02-8.54E-02% respectively, whereas for all OAR, the maximum and mean dose were distributed between -1.16-2.51%, -1.21-3.12% respectively. For the second reconstructed dose: the maximum, minimum, and mean dose for all targets was distributed between 0.0995~5.7145%, 0.6892~4.4727%, 0.5829~1.8931% separately. Due to OAR, maximum and mean dose distribution was observed between -3.1462~6.8920%, -6.9899~1.9316%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient-specific QA based on the log-file could reflect the accuracy of the linac execution plan, which usually has a small influence on dose delivery. When the linac calibration errors were considered, the reconstructed dose was closer to the actual delivery and the developed method was accurate and practical.

Impact of systematic MLC positional uncertainties on the quality of single-isocenter multi-target VMAT-SRS treatment plans

Purpose

To study the impact of systematic MLC leaf positional uncertainties (stemming from mechanical inaccuracies or sub‐optimal MLC modeling) on the quality of intracranial single‐isocenter multi‐target VMAT‐SRS treatment plans. An estimation of appropriate tolerance levels is attempted.

Methods

Five patients, with three to four metastases and at least one target lying in close proximity to organs‐at‐risk (OARs) were included in this study. A single‐isocenter multi‐arc VMAT plan per patient was prepared, which served as the reference for dosimetric impact evaluation. A range of leaf offsets was introduced (±0.03 mm up to ±0.30 mm defined at the MLC plane) to both leaf banks, by varying the leaf offset MLC modeling parameter in Monaco for all the prepared plans, in order to simulate projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm up to ±0.94 mm at the isocenter plane, respectively. For all offsets simulated and cases studied, dose distributions were re‐calculated and compared with the corresponding reference ones. An experimental dosimetric procedure using the SRS mapCHECK diode array was also performed to support the simulation study results and investigate its suitability to detect small systematic leaf positional errors.

Results

Projected leaf offsets of ±0.09 mm were well‐tolerated with respect to both target dosimetry and OAR‐sparing. A linear relationship was found between D_95% percentage change and projected leaf offset (slope: 12%/mm). Impact of projected offset on target dosimetry was strongly associated with target volume. In two cases, plans that could be considered potentially clinically unacceptable (i.e., clinical dose constraint violation) were obtained even for projected offsets as small as 0.19 mm. The performed experimental dosimetry check can detect potential small systematic leaf errors.

Conclusions

Plan quality indices and dose–volume metrics are very sensitive to systematic sub‐millimeter leaf positional inaccuracies, projected at the isocenter plane. Acceptable and tolerance levels in systematic MLC uncertainties need to be tailored to VMAT‐SRS spatial and dosimetric accuracy requirements.

A novel quality assurance procedure for trajectory log validation using phantom-less real-time latency corrected EPID images

The use of trajectory log files for routine patient quality assurance is gaining acceptance. Such use requires the validation of the trajectory log itself. However, the accurate localization of a multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf while it is in motion remains a challenging task. We propose an efficient phantom‐less technique using the EPID to verify the dynamic MLC positions with high accuracy. Measurements were made on four Varian TrueBeams equipped with M120 MLCs. Two machines were equipped with the S1000 EPID; two were equipped with the S1200 EPID. All EPIDs were geometrically corrected prior to measurements. Dosimetry mode EPID measurements were captured by a frame grabber card directly linked to the linac. All leaf position measurements were corrected both temporally and geometrically. The readout latency of each panel, as a function of pixel row, was determined using a 40 × 1.0 cm² sliding window (SW) field moving at 2.5 cm/s orthogonal to the row readout direction. The latency of each panel type was determined by averaging the results of two panels of the same type. Geometric correction was achieved by computing leaf positions with respect to the projected isocenter position as a function of gantry angle. This was determined by averaging the central axis position of fields at two collimator positions of 90° and 270°. The radiological to physical leaf end position was determined by comparison of the measured gap with that determined using a feeler gauge. The radiological to physical leaf position difference was found to be 0.1 mm. With geometric and latency correction, the proposed method was found to be improve the ability to detect dynamic MLC positions from 1.0 to 0.2 mm for all leaves. Latency and panel residual geometric error correction improve EPID‐based MLC position measurement. These improvements provide for the first time a trajectory log QA procedure.

An Empirical Transmitted EPID Dosimetry Method using a Back-Projection Algorithm

Background:

The present study aimed to introduce a rapid transmission dosimetry through an electronic portal-imaging device (EPID) to achieve two-dimensional (2D) dose distribution for homogenous environments.

Material and Methods:

In this Phantom study, first, the EPID calibration curve and correction coefficients for field size were obtained from EPID and ionization chamber. Second, the EPID off-axis pixel response was measured, and the grey-scale image of the EPID was converted into portal dose image using the calibration curve. Next, the scattering contribution was calculated to obtain the primary dose. Then, by means of a verified back-projection algorithm and the Scatter-to-Primary dose ratio, a 2D dose distribution at the mid-plane was obtained.

Results:

The results obtained from comparing the transmitted EPID dosimetry to the calculated dose, using commercial treatment planning system with gamma function while there is 3% dose difference and 3mm distance to agreement criteria, were in a good agreement. In addition, the pass rates of γ < 1 was 94.89% for the homogeneous volumes.

Conclusion:

Based on the results, the method proposed can be used in EPID dosimetry.

MLC positioning verification for small fields: a new investigation into automatic EPID-based verification methods

Multileaf-collimator (MLC) defined small fields in radiotherapy are used in high dose, ultra-conformal techniques such as stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery. Proximity to critical structures and irreversible damage arising from inaccurate delivery mean that correct positioning of the MLC system is of the utmost importance. Some of the existing techniques for MLC positioning quality assurance make use of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images. However, conventional collimation verification algorithms based on the full width at half maximum (FWHM) fail when applied to small field images acquired by an EPID due to overlapping aperture penumbrae, lateral electron disequilibrium and radiation source occlusion. The objective of this study was to investigate sub-pixel edge detection and other techniques with the aim of developing an automatic and autonomous EPID-based method suitable for MLC positional verification of small static fields with arbitrary shapes. Methods investigated included derivative interpolation, Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) and an algorithm based on the partial area effect hypothesis. None of these methods were found to be suitable for MLC positioning verification in small field conditions. A method is proposed which uses a manufacturer-specific empirically modified FWHM algorithm which shows improvement over the conventional techniques in the small field size range. With a measured mean absolute difference from planned position for Varian linacs of 0.01 ± 0.26 mm, compared with the erroneous FWHM value of 0.70 ± 0.51 mm. For Elekta linacs the proposed algorithm returned 0.26 ± 0.25 mm, in contrast to the FWHM result of 1.79 ± 1.07 mm.

Sensitivity of 3D Dose Verification to Multileaf Collimator Misalignments in Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Spinal Tumor

PURPOSE

This study aimed to detect the sensitivity of Delt 4 on ordinary field multileaf collimator misalignments, system misalignments, random misalignments, and misalignments caused by gravity of the multileaf collimator in stereotactic body radiation therapy.

METHODS

(1) Two field sizes, including 2.00 cm (X) × 6.00 cm (Y) and 7.00 cm (X) × 6.00 cm (Y), were set. The leaves of X1 and X2 in the multileaf collimator were simultaneously opened. (2) Three cases of stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal tumor were used. The dose of the planning target volume was 1800 cGy with 3 fractions. The 4 types to be simulated included (1) the leaves of X1 and X2 in the multileaf collimator were simultaneously opened, (2) only X1 of the multileaf collimator and the unilateral leaf were opened, (3) the leaves of X1 and X2 in the multileaf collimator were randomly opened, and (4) gravity effect was simulated. The leaves of X1 and X2 in the multileaf collimator shifted to the same direction. The difference between the corresponding 3-dimensional dose distribution measured by Delt 4 and the dose distribution in the original plan made in the treatment planning system was analyzed with γ index criteria of 3.0 mm/3.0%, 2.5 mm/2.5%, 2.0 mm/2.0%, 2.5 mm/1.5%, and 1.0 mm/1.0%.

RESULTS

(1) In the field size of 2.00 cm (X) × 6.00 cm (Y), the γ pass rate of the original was 100% with 2.5 mm/2.5% as the statistical standard. The pass rate decreased to 95.9% and 89.4% when the X1 and X2 directions of the multileaf collimator were opened within 0.3 and 0.5 mm, respectively. In the field size of 7.00 (X) cm × 6.00 (Y) cm with 1.5 mm/1.5% as the statistical standard, the pass rate of the original was 96.5%. After X1 and X2 of the multileaf collimator were opened within 0.3 mm, the pass rate decreased to lower than 95%. The pass rate was higher than 90% within the 3 mm opening. (2) For spinal tumor, the change in the planning target volume V₁₈ under various modes calculated using treatment planning system was within 1%. However, the maximum dose deviation of the spinal cord was high. In the spinal cord with a gravity of -0.25 mm, the maximum dose deviation minimally changed and increased by 6.8% than that of the original. In the largest opening of 1.00 mm, the deviation increased by 47.7% than that of the original. Moreover, the pass rate of the original determined through Delt 4 was 100% with 3 mm/3% as the statistical standard. The pass rate was 97.5% in the 0.25 mm opening and higher than 95% in the 0.5 mm opening A, 0.25 mm opening A, whole gravity series, and 0.20 mm random opening. Moreover, the pass rate was higher than 90% with 2.0 mm/2.0% as the statistical standard in the original and in the 0.25 mm gravity. The difference in the pass rates was not statistically significant among the -0.25 mm gravity, 0.25 mm opening A, 0.20 mm random opening, and original as calculated using SPSS 11.0 software with P > .05.

CONCLUSIONS

Different analysis standards of Delt 4 were analyzed in different field sizes to improve the detection sensitivity of the multileaf collimator position on the basis of 90% throughout rate. In stereotactic body radiation therapy of spinal tumor, the 2.0 mm/2.0% standard can reveal the dosimetric differences caused by the minor multileaf collimator position compared with the 3.0 mm/3.0% statistical standard. However, some position derivations of the misalignments that caused high dose amount to the spinal cord cannot be detected. However, some misalignments were not detected when a large number of multileaf collimator were administered into the spinal cord.

An independent system for real-time dynamic multileaf collimation trajectory verification using EPID

A new tool has been developed to verify the trajectory of dynamic multileaf collimators (MLCs) used in advanced radiotherapy techniques using only the information provided by the electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) measured image frames. The prescribed leaf positions are resampled to a higher resolution in a pre-processing stage to improve the verification precision. Measured MLC positions are extracted from the EPID frames using a template matching method. A cosine similarity metric is then applied to synchronise measured and planned leaf positions for comparison. Three additional comparison functions were incorporated to ensure robust synchronisation. The MLC leaf trajectory error detection was simulated for both intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) (prostate) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) (head-and-neck) deliveries with anthropomorphic phantoms in the beam. The overall accuracy for MLC positions automatically extracted from EPID image frames was approximately 0.5 mm. The MLC leaf trajectory verification system can detect leaf position errors during IMRT and VMAT with a tolerance of 3.5 mm within 1 s.

Evaluation of relative transmitted dose for a step and shoot head and neck intensity modulated radiation therapy using a scanning liquid ionization chamber electronic portal imaging device

The dose delivery verification for a head and neck static intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) case using a scanning liquid ionization chamber electronic portal imaging device (SLIC-EPID) was investigated. Acquired electronic portal images were firstly converted into transmitted dose maps using an in-house developed method. The dose distributions were then compared with those calculated in a virtual EPID using the Pinnacle³ treatment planning system (TPS). Using gamma evaluation with the ΔD_max and DTA criteria of 3%/2.54 mm, an excellent agreement was observed between transmitted dose measured using SLIC-EPID and that calculated by TPS (gamma score approximately 95%) for large MLC fields. In contrast, for several small subfields, due to SLIC-EPID image blurring, significant disagreement was found in the gamma results. Differences between EPID and TPS dose maps were also observed for several parts of the radiation subfields, when the radiation beam passed through air on the outside of tissue. The transmitted dose distributions measured using portal imagers such as SLIC-EPID can be used to verify the dose delivery to a patient. However, several aspects such as accurate calibration procedure and imager response under different conditions should be taken into the consideration. In addition, SLIC-EPID image blurring is another important issue, which should be considered if the SLIC-EPID is used for clinical dosimetry verification.

Using an EPID for patient-specific VMAT quality assurance

PURPOSE

A patient-specific quality assurance (QA) method was developed to verify gantry-specific individual multileaf collimator (MLC) apertures (control points) in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

METHODS

VMAT treatment plans were generated in an Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). DICOM images from a Varian EPID (aS1000) acquired in continuous acquisition mode were used for pretreatment QA. Each cine image file contains the grayscale image of the MLC aperture related to its specific control point and the corresponding gantry angle information. The TPS MLC file of this RapidArc plan contains the leaf positions for all 177 control points (gantry angles). In-house software was developed that interpolates the measured images based on the gantry angle and overlays them with the MLC pattern for all control points. The 38% isointensity line was used to define the edge of the MLC leaves on the portal images. The software generates graphs and tables that provide analysis for the number of mismatched leaf positions for a chosen distance to agreement at each control point and the frequency in which each particular leaf mismatches for the entire arc.

RESULTS

Seven patients plans were analyzed using this method. The leaves with the highest mismatched rate were found to be treatment plan dependent.

CONCLUSIONS

This in-house software can be used to automatically verify the MLC leaf positions for all control points of VMAT plans using cine images acquired by an EPID.

An EPID based method for efficient and precise asymmetric jaw alignment quality assurance

PURPOSE

The aim of this work was to investigate the use of amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) for regular quality assurance of linear accelerator asymmetric jaw junctioning.

METHODS

The method uses the beam central axis position on the EPID measured to subpixel accuracy found from two EPID images with 180 degrees opposing collimator angles. Individual zero jaw position ("half-beam blocked") images are then acquired and the jaw position precisely determined for each using penumbra interpolation. The accuracy of determining jaw position with the EPID method was measured by translating a block (simulating a jaw) by known distances, using a translation stage, and then measuring each translation distance with the EPID. To establish the utility of EPID based junction dose measurements, radiographic film measurements of junction dose maxima/minima as a function of jaw gap/overlap were made and compared to EPID measurements. Using the method, the long-term stability of zero jaw positioning was assessed for four linear accelerators over a 1-1.5 yr time period. The stability at nonzero gantry angles was assessed over a shorter time period.

RESULTS

The accuracy of determining jaw translations with the method was within 0.14 mm found using the translation stage [standard deviation (SD) of 0.037 mm]. The junction doses measured with the EPID were different from film due to the nonwater equivalent EPID scattering properties and hence different penumbra profile. The doses were approximately linear with gap or overlap, and a correction factor was derived to convert EPID measured junction dose to film measured equivalent. Over a 1 yr period, the zero jaw positions at gantry zero position were highly reproducible with an average SD of 0.07 mm for the 16 collimator jaws examined. However, the average jaw positions ranged from -0.7 to 0.9 mm relative to central axis for the different jaws. The zero jaw position was also reproducible at gantry 90 degrees position with 0.1 mm SD variation with the mean jaw position offset from the gantry zero position consistently by 0.3-0.4 mm for the jaws studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The EPID based method is efficient and yields more precise data on linear accelerator jaw positioning and reproducibility than previous methods. The results highlight that zero jaw positions are highly reproducible to a level much smaller than the displayed jaw resolution and that there is a need for better methods to calibrate the jaw positioning.

An MLC calibration method using a detector array

PURPOSE

The authors have developed a quantitative calibration method for a multileaf collimator (MLC) which measures individual leaf positions relative to the MLC backup jaw on an Elekta Synergy linear accelerator.

METHODS

The method utilizes a commercially available two-axis detector array (Profiler 2; Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL). To calibrate the MLC bank, its backup jaw is positioned at the central axis and the opposing jaw is retracted to create a half-beam configuration. The position of the backup jaws field edge is then measured with the array to obtain what is termed the radiation defined reference line. The positions of the individual leaf ends relative to this reference line are then inferred by the detector response in the leaf end penumbra. Iteratively adjusting and remeasuring the leaf end positions to within specifications completes the calibration. Using the backup jaw as a reference for the leaf end positions is based on three assumptions: (1) The leading edge of an MLC leaf bank is parallel to its backup jaw's leading edge, (2) the backup jaw position is reproducible, and (3) the measured radiation field edge created by each leaf end is representative of that leaf's position. Data from an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) were used in a similar analysis to check the results obtained with the array.

RESULTS

The relative leaf end positions measured with the array differed from those measured with the EPID by an average of 0.11+/-0.09 mm per leaf. The maximum leaf positional change measured with the Profiler 2 over a 3 month period was 0.51 mm. A leaf positional accuracy of +/-0.4 mm is easily attainable through the iterative calibration process. The method requires an average of 40 min to measure both leaf banks.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates that the Profiler 2 is an effective tool for efficient and quantitative MLC quality assurance and calibration.

Electron beam quality control using an amorphous silicon EPID

An amorphous silicon EPID has been investigated to determine whether it is capable of quality control constancy measurements for linear accelerator electron beams. The EPID grayscale response was found to be extremely linear with dose over a wide dose range and, more specifically, for exposures of 95-100 MU. Small discrepancies of up to 0.8% in linearity were found at 6 MeV (8-15 MeV showed better agreement). The shape of the beam profile was found to be significantly altered by scatter in air over the approximately 60 cm gap between the end of the applicator and the EPID. Nevertheless, relative changes in EPID-measured profile flatness and symmetry were linearly related to changes in these parameters at 95 cm focus to surface distance (FSD) measured using a 2D diode array. Similar results were obtained at 90 degrees and 270 degrees gantry angles. Six months of daily images were acquired and analyzed to determine whether the device is suitable as a constancy checker. EPID output measurements agreed well with daily ion chamber measurements, with a 0.8% standard deviation in the difference between the two measurement sets. When compared to weekly parallel plate chamber measurements, this figure dropped to 0.5%. A Monte Carlo (MC) model of the EPID was created and demonstrated excellent agreement between MC-calculated profiles in water and the EPID at 95 and 157 cm FSD. Good agreement was also found with measured EPID profiles, demonstrating that the EPID provides an accurate measurement of electron profiles. The EPID was thus shown to be an effective method for performing electron beam daily constancy checks.