Dependence of fluence errors in dynamic IMRT on leaf-positional errors varying with time and leaf number

Insensitivity of machine log files to MLC leaf backlash and effect of MLC backlash on clinical dynamic MLC motion: An experimental investigation

Purpose

Multi‐leaf‐collimator (MLC) leaf position accuracy is important for accurate dynamic radiotherapy treatment plan delivery. Machine log files have become widely utilized for quality assurance (QA) of such dynamic treatments. The primary aim is to test the sensitivity of machine log files in comparison to electronic portal imaging device (EPID)‐based measurements to MLC position errors caused by leaf backlash. The secondary aim is to investigate the effect of MLC leaf backlash on MLC leaf motion during clinical dynamic plan delivery.

Methods

The sensitivity of machine log files and two EPID‐based measurements were assessed via a controlled experiment, whereby the length of the “T” section of a series of 12 MLC leaf T‐nuts in a Varian Millennium MLC for a Trilogy C‐series type linac was reduced by sandpapering the top of the “T” to introduce backlash. The built‐in machine MLC leaf backlash test as well as measurements for two EPID‐based dynamic MLC positional tests along with log files were recorded pre‐ and post‐T‐nut modification. All methods were investigated for sensitivity to the T‐nut change by assessing the effect on measured MLC leaf positions. A reduced version of the experiment was repeated on a TrueBeam type linac with Millennium MLC.

Results

No significant differences before and after T‐nut modification were detected in any of the log file data. Both EPID methods demonstrated sensitivity to the introduced change at approximately the expected magnitude with a strong dependence observed with gantry angle. EPID‐based data showed MLC positional error in agreement with the micrometer measured T‐nut length change to 0.07 ± 0.05 mm (1 SD) using the departmental routine QA test. Backlash results were consistent between linac types.

Conclusion

Machine log files appear insensitive to MLC position errors caused by MLC leaf backlash introduced via the T‐nut. The effect of backlash on clinical MLC motions is heavily gantry angle dependent.

Remote sensing array (RSA) for linac beam monitoring

The purpose of the present work is to evaluate the feasibility of a novel real-time beam monitoring device for medical linacs which remotely senses charge carriers produced in air by the beam without intersecting and attenuating the beamline. The primary goal is to elaborate a theoretical concept of a possible detector geometry and underlying physical model that allows for determination of clinically relevant beam data in real time, namely MLC leaf positions and dose rate. The detector consists of two opposing electrode arrays arranged in two possible orientations around the beamline. Detection of charge carriers is governed by electromagnetic principles described by Shockley–Ramo theorem. Ions produced by ionization of the air column upstream of patient move laterally in an external electric field. According to the method of images, mirror charges and mirror currents are formed in the strip electrodes. Determination of MU rate and MLC positions using the measured signal requires solution of an inverse problem. In the present work we adopted a Least-Square approach and characterized detector response and sensitivity to detection of beam properties for different electrode geometries and MLC shapes. Results were dependent on MLC field shape and the leaf position within the active volume. The accuracy of determination of leaf positions were in the sub-mm range (up to 0.25–1 mm). Additionally, detector sensitivity was quantified by simulating ions/pulse delivered with a radiation transport deterministic computation in 1D in CEPXS/ONEDANT. For a 6 MV linac pulse, signal amplitude per pulse was estimated to be in the lower pA to fA range. We computationally demonstrated feasibility of the remote sensing detector capable of measuring beam parameters such as MLC leaf positions and dose range for each pulse. Future work should focus on optimizing the electrode geometry to increase sensitivity and better reconstruction algorithms to provide more accurate solutions of the inverse problem.

Report of AAPM Task Group 219 on independent calculation-based dose/MU verification for IMRT

Independent verification of the dose per monitor unit (MU) to deliver the prescribed dose to a patient has been a mainstay of radiation oncology quality assurance (QA). We discuss the role of secondary dose/MU calculation programs as part of a comprehensive QA program. This report provides guidelines on calculation-based dose/MU verification for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) provided by various modalities. We provide a review of various algorithms for "independent/second check" of monitor unit calculations for IMRT/VMAT. The report makes recommendations on the clinical implementation of secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on commissioning and acceptance of various commercially available secondary dose/MU calculation programs; on benchmark QA and periodic QA; and on clinically reasonable action levels for agreement of secondary dose/MU calculation programs.

Investigating the use of aperture shape controller in VMAT treatment deliveries

BACKGROUND

Aperture shape controller (ASC) is a recently introduced leaf sequencer that controls the complexity of multileaf collimator apertures in the Photon Optimizer algorithm of the Eclipse treatment planning system. The aim of this study is to determine if the ASC can reduce plan complexity and improve verification results, without compromising plan quality.

METHODS

Thirteen plans grouped into cohorts of head and neck/brain, breast/chest and pelvis were reoptimised using the same optimization as the non-ASC setting for low, moderate and high ASC settings. These plans were analyzed using plan quality indices such as the conformity index and homogeneity index in addition to dose-volume histogram based analysis on PTVs and organ at risks. Complexity assessments were performed using metrics such as average leaf pair opening, modulation complexity scores, relative monitor units (MU) and treatment time. Monitor unit per gantry angle variations were also analyzed. A third-party algorithm was also used to assess 3D dose distributions produced using the new leaf sequencer tool. Deliverability for the final multileaf collimator distribution was quantified using portal dose image prediction based gamma analysis.

RESULTS

Plan conformality assessments showed comparable results and no significant plan degradation for plans reoptimised using ASC. Reduction in overall MU distributions were seen in some cases using higher ASC however, no overall trends were observed. In general, treatment deliverability, assessed using gamma analysis did not improve drastically however MU per degree distribution in 1 case improved when reoptimised using ASC. Treatment MUs generally reduced when ASC settings were used whilst in 1 case an increase in the treatment time factor > 1.8 was observed. The third-party algorithm assessment showed an underestimation of dose calculations for all cohorts used in this study when a higher ASC setting is used.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of using ASC in treatment plans was characterised in this study. Although plan complexity marginally improved when using higher ASC settings, no consensus could be reached based on metrics analyzed in this study. A reduction in MU distribution was observed with increasing ASC settings in most cases. This study recommends that ASC to be used as an additional tool only to test its suitability to reduce plan complexity.

Optimization of MLC parameters for TPS calculation and dosimetric verification: application to single isocenter radiosurgery of multiple brain lesions using VMAT

Linac and MLC-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) using single-isocenter-multiple-target (SIMT) VMAT has become increasingly popular in the management of multi-focal cranial metastases. However, significant geometrical and dosimetric challenges exist due to the typically small target volumes and in most cases, non-isocentric locations. To the best of our knowledge, there hasn't been a study in the optimization of MLC parameters, in the context of SIMT SRS, to ensure TPS calculation accuracy. In this work, we set out to optimize the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) for the HD MLC installed on dedicated stereotactic Varian STx systems using a diverse group of 21 clinical SRS and SBRT plans. These plans featured a broad range of target sizes and target-to-isocenter distances that are typical of the stereotactic cases treated on these systems. Dose discrepancies between TPS calculations and verification measurements using a previously validated diode array Delta⁴ (ScandiDos) were minimized in a balanced manner to accommodate the variety of stereotactic plans. A DLG of 0.6 mm was found to be 'optimal' for the HD MLC and for the 'typical' plans treated on our STx systems. The finding was independently verified using commercially available 3D polymer gel dosimeter CrystalBall^TM (MGS Research Inc.). 3D verification for 6 SIMT SRS plans, consisted of 5 to 15 targets, achieved an average gamma score of 97.3% (σ = 2.0%) on 3%/2 mm criteria with a cutoff isodose level of 20%. We further examined the practice of routine dosimetric verifications including the selection of appropriate detectors and optimal gamma parameters. We found that the commonly used standard 3%/3 mm criteria would have resulted in all but 4 (out of 2840) clinical plans achieving a gamma score of 95% or better, and therefore, losing sensitivity to detect potential dosimetric discrepancies. Based on the characteristics of stereotactic plans, a more stringent distance-to-agreement parameter is needed.

Evaluating the dosimetric consequences of MLC leaf positioning errors in dynamic IMRT treatments

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric impact of multileaf collimator (MLC) positional errors on dynamic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatments through planning simulation. Secondly the sensitivity of IMRT MatriXX device for detecting the MLC leaf positional errors was also evaluated.

Materials and methods

In this study five dynamic IMRT plans, each for brain and head–neck (HN), were retrospectively included. An in-house software was used to introduce random errors (uniform distribution between −2·0 and +2·0 mm) and systematic errors [±0·5, ±0·75, ±1·0 and ±2·0 mm (+: open MLC error and −: close MLC error)]. The error-introduced MLC files were imported into the treatment planning system and new dose distributions were calculated. Furthermore, the dose–volume histogram files of all plans were exported to in-house software for equivalent uniform dose (EUD), tumour control probability and normal tissue complication probability calculations. The error-introduced plans were also delivered on LINAC, and the planar fluences were measured by IMRT MatriXX. Further, 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm γ-criteria were used for analysis.

Results

In planning simulation study, the impact of random errors was negligible and ΔEUD was <0·5±0·7%, for both brain and HN. The impact of systematic errors was substantial, and on average, the maximum change in EUD for systematic errors (close 2 mm) was −10·7±3·1% for brain and −15·5±2·6% for HN.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that the acceptable systematic error was 0·4 mm for brain and 0·3 mm for HN. Furthermore, IMRT MatriXX device was able to detect the MLC errors ≥2 mm in HN and >3 mm errors in brain with 2%/2 mm γ-criteria.

Commissioning and quality assurance for VMAT delivery systems: An efficient time-resolved system using real-time EPID imaging

PURPOSE

An ideal commissioning and quality assurance (QA) program for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) delivery systems should assess the performance of each individual dynamic component as a function of gantry angle. Procedures within such a program should also be time-efficient, independent of the delivery system and be sensitive to all types of errors. The purpose of this work is to develop a system for automated time-resolved commissioning and QA of VMAT control systems which meets these criteria.

METHODS

The procedures developed within this work rely solely on images obtained, using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) without the presence of a phantom. During the delivery of specially designed VMAT test plans, EPID frames were acquired at 9.5 Hz, using a frame grabber. The set of test plans was developed to individually assess the performance of the dose delivery and multileaf collimator (MLC) control systems under varying levels of delivery complexities. An in-house software tool was developed to automatically extract features from the EPID images and evaluate the following characteristics as a function of gantry angle: dose delivery accuracy, dose rate constancy, beam profile constancy, gantry speed constancy, dynamic MLC positioning accuracy, MLC speed and acceleration constancy, and synchronization between gantry angle, MLC positioning and dose rate. Machine log files were also acquired during each delivery and subsequently compared to information extracted from EPID image frames.

RESULTS

The largest difference between measured and planned dose at any gantry angle was 0.8% which correlated with rapid changes in dose rate and gantry speed. For all other test plans, the dose delivered was within 0.25% of the planned dose for all gantry angles. Profile constancy was not found to vary with gantry angle for tests where gantry speed and dose rate were constant, however, for tests with varying dose rate and gantry speed, segments with lower dose rate and higher gantry speed exhibited less profile stability. MLC positional accuracy was not observed to be dependent on the degree of interdigitation. MLC speed was measured for each individual leaf and slower leaf speeds were shown to be compensated for by lower dose rates. The test procedures were found to be sensitive to 1 mm systematic MLC errors, 1 mm random MLC errors, 0.4 mm MLC gap errors and synchronization errors between the MLC, dose rate and gantry angle controls systems of 1°. In general, parameters measured by both EPID and log files agreed with the plan, however, a greater average departure from the plan was evidenced by the EPID measurements.

CONCLUSION

QA test plans and analysis methods have been developed to assess the performance of each dynamic component of VMAT deliveries individually and as a function of gantry angle. This methodology relies solely on time-resolved EPID imaging without the presence of a phantom and has been shown to be sensitive to a range of delivery errors. The procedures developed in this work are both comprehensive and time-efficient and can be used for streamlined commissioning and QA of VMAT delivery systems.

The impact of different leaf limited accelerations on leaf-positional error of a self-developed MLC prototype

Multi-leaf collimator (MLC) provides an available approach to achieve sophisticated radiotherapy techniques and plays an important role in advanced high quality radiation therapy. Delivery accuracy of radiation therapy mainly depends on the leaf sequence generated by treatment plans and dynamic performance of MLCs. Previous studies have explored the influence of various leaf limited velocities and dose rates on the leaf-positional error. However, there is a lack of research on the influence of different leaf limited accelerations on the delivery accuracy or leaf-positional error. Confining our study to the technique of sliding window, we investigate the effect of various leaf limited accelerations in treatment plans on leaf-positional error of a self-developed MLC prototype. In order to preliminarily verify the assumption, experiments of leaf trajectories sequenced with different limited accelerations under the same displacement were performed. Thereafter, according to the principle of the sliding window technique and the prescribed intensity profile, leaf trajectories for different leaf limited accelerations from 1.0 m/s2 to 5.0 m/s2 were calculated. Conducted on the self-developed MLC prototype, the experiment results have shown that the maximum leaf-positional error can be kept within 0.5 mm while the average and RMS of the leaf-positional error vary from leaf limited accelerations. Under the proposal leaf limited acceleration of 3 m/s2, the self-developed MLC achieved the optimal dynamic performance. In conclusion, for commercial MLCs, optimal constraint for treatment plans should be investigated and determined because incorporation of reasonable servo-mechanical constraints into leaf sequencing algorithm can enhance the conformity between planned and delivered fields.

Evaluation of MLC performance in VMAT and dynamic IMRT by log file analysis

PURPOSE

This multi-institution study assessed the positioning accuracy of multileaf collimators (MLC) by analyzing log files. It determined the main machine parameters that affect MLC positioning errors for pre-TrueBeam (Clinac) and TrueBeam linacs.

METHODS

Around 30,000 dIMRT and VMAT log files belonging to 6 linacs from 4 different centers were analyzed. An in-house software was used to calculate 95th percentile and RMS error values and their correlation with certain parameters such as maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed and gantry angle. The effect of MLC communication delay on error statistics was assessed in Clinac linacs. To that end MLC positioning error statistics were calculated with and without the delay effect.

RESULTS

For dIMRT treatments in Clinac linacs the mean leaf RMS error was 0.306mm with and 0.030mm without the delay effect. Leaf RMS error was closely linked to maximum and mean leaf speeds, but without the delay effect that link was weaker. No trend was observed between bank RMS error and gantry angle. Without the delay effect larger bank RMS errors were obtained for gantry angles with leaf movements against gravity. For VMAT treatments in TrueBeam linacs the mean leaf RMS error was 0.038mm. A link was also observed between leaf RMS error and maximum and mean leaf speeds.

CONCLUSION

TrueBeam MLC positioning errors are substantially lower than those of Clinac linacs. In Clinac machines the analysis of dynalogs without the delay effect allows us to study the influence of factors that are masked by the delay effect.

[Consideration of Dose Error in Dynamic MLC IMRT Using MLC Speed Control with Dose Rate Change]

In dynamic multi-leaf collimator (MLC) intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), the accuracy of delivered dose is influenced by the positional accuracy of the moving MLC. In order to assess the accuracy of the delivered dose during dynamic MLC IMRT, the delivered dose error in dynamic MLC IMRT using the MLC speed control with dose rate change was investigated. Sweeping gap sequence irradiation was performed with constant MLC leaf speed at 0.6 to 5 cm/s or changed MLC speed (4 steps). The positional accuracy of the moving MLC was evaluated from the trajectory log file. Absorbed dose measurements with sweeping field (Field size: 10 cm×10 cm, MLC leaf speed: 0.6 to 2.7 cm/s, MLC leaf gap width: 0.2 to 2.0 cm) were performed. The delivered dose error at each gap width was evaluated according to MLC leaf speed change. MLC positional errors and changes in delivered dose according to MLC leaf speed were within 0.07 mm and 0.6%, respectively, for all measurements. Beam hold-off did not occur under any conditions. We confirmed that TrueBeam can regulate MLC leaf speed below the maximum limit (2.5 cm/s) by changing the dose rate in real-time during irradiation in dynamic MLC IMRT. MLC gap error during irradiation was estimated within 0.2 mm at the maximum dose rate from the results of absolute dose measurements using dynamic MLC irradiation. In conclusion, TrueBeam can use the maximum dose rate for the treatment planning of dynamic MLC IMRT, which has an advantage of shorter treatment time.

An EPID-based system for gantry-resolved MLC quality assurance for VMAT

Multileaf collimator (MLC) positions should be precisely and independently mea-sured as a function of gantry angle as part of a comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). It is also ideal that such a QA program has the ability to relate MLC positional accuracy to patient-specific dosimetry in order to determine the clinical significance of any detected MLC errors. In this work we propose a method to verify individual MLC trajectories during VMAT deliveries for use as a routine linear accelerator QA tool. We also extend this method to reconstruct the 3D patient dose in the treatment planning sys-tem based on the measured MLC trajectories and the original DICOM plan file. The method relies on extracting MLC positions from EPID images acquired at 8.41fps during clinical VMAT deliveries. A gantry angle is automatically tagged to each image in order to obtain the MLC trajectories as a function of gantry angle. This analysis was performed for six clinical VMAT plans acquired at monthly intervals for three months. The measured trajectories for each delivery were compared to the MLC positions from the DICOM plan file. The maximum mean error detected was 0.07 mm and a maximum root-mean-square error was 0.8 mm for any leaf of any delivery. The sensitivity of this system was characterized by introducing random and systematic MLC errors into the test plans. It was demonstrated that the system is capable of detecting random and systematic errors on the range of 1-2mm and single leaf calibration errors of 0.5 mm. The methodology developed in the work has potential to be used for efficient routine linear accelerator MLC QA and pretreatment patient-specific QA and has the ability to relate measured MLC positional errors to 3D dosimetric errors within a patient volume.

A machine learning approach to the accurate prediction of multi-leaf collimator positional errors

Discrepancies between planned and delivered movements of multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) are an important source of errors in dose distributions during radiotherapy. In this work we used machine learning techniques to train models to predict these discrepancies, assessed the accuracy of the model predictions, and examined the impact these errors have on quality assurance (QA) procedures and dosimetry. Predictive leaf motion parameters for the models were calculated from the plan files, such as leaf position and velocity, whether the leaf was moving towards or away from the isocenter of the MLC, and many others. Differences in positions between synchronized DICOM-RT planning files and DynaLog files reported during QA delivery were used as a target response for training of the models. The final model is capable of predicting MLC positions during delivery to a high degree of accuracy. For moving MLC leaves, predicted positions were shown to be significantly closer to delivered positions than were planned positions. By incorporating predicted positions into dose calculations in the TPS, increases were shown in gamma passing rates against measured dose distributions recorded during QA delivery. For instance, head and neck plans with 1%/2 mm gamma criteria had an average increase in passing rate of 4.17% (SD = 1.54%). This indicates that the inclusion of predictions during dose calculation leads to a more realistic representation of plan delivery. To assess impact on the patient, dose volumetric histograms (DVH) using delivered positions were calculated for comparison with planned and predicted DVHs. In all cases, predicted dose volumetric parameters were in closer agreement to the delivered parameters than were the planned parameters, particularly for organs at risk on the periphery of the treatment area. By incorporating the predicted positions into the TPS, the treatment planner is given a more realistic view of the dose distribution as it will truly be delivered to the patient.

Analysis of direct clinical consequences of MLC positional errors in volumetric-modulated arc therapy using 3D dosimetry system

In advanced, intensity-modulated external radiotherapy facility, the multileaf collimator has a decisive role in the beam modulation by creating multiple segments or dynamically varying field shapes to deliver a uniform dose distribution to the target with maximum sparing of normal tissues. The position of each MLC leaf has become more critical for intensity-modulated delivery (step-and-shoot IMRT, dynamic IMRT, and VMAT) compared to 3D CRT, where it defines only field boundaries. We analyzed the impact of the MLC positional errors on the dose distribution for volumetric-modulated arc therapy, using a 3D dosimetry system. A total of 15 VMAT cases, five each for brain, head and neck, and prostate cases, were retrospectively selected for the study. All the plans were generated in Monaco 3.0.0v TPS (Elekta Corporation, Atlanta, GA) and delivered using Elekta Synergy linear accelerator. Systematic errors of +1, +0.5, +0.3, 0, -1, -0.5, -0.3 mm were introduced in the MLC bank of the linear accelerator and the impact on the dose distribution of VMAT delivery was measured using the COMPASS 3D dosim-etry system. All the plans were created using single modulated arcs and the dose calculation was performed using a Monte Carlo algorithm in a grid size of 3 mm. The clinical endpoints D95%, D50%, D2%, and Dmax,D20%, D50% were taken for the evaluation of the target and critical organs doses, respectively. A significant dosimetric effect was found for many cases even with 0.5 mm of MLC positional errors. The average change of dose D 95% to PTV for ± 1 mm, ± 0.5 mm, and ±0.3mm was 5.15%, 2.58%, and 0.96% for brain cases; 7.19%, 3.67%, and 1.56% for head and neck cases; and 8.39%, 4.5%, and 1.86% for prostate cases, respectively. The average deviation of dose Dmax was 5.4%, 2.8%, and 0.83% for brainstem in brain cases; 8.2%, 4.4%, and 1.9% for spinal cord in H&N; and 10.8%, 6.2%, and 2.1% for rectum in prostate cases, respectively. The average changes in dose followed a linear relationship with the amount of MLC positional error, as can be expected. MLC positional errors beyond ± 0.3 mm showed a significant influence on the intensity-modulated dose distributions. It is, therefore, recommended to have a cautious MLC calibration procedure to sufficiently meet the accuracy in dose delivery.

Detector system dose verification comparisons for arc therapy: couch vs. gantry mount

The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a gantry‐mounted detector system and a couch set detector system using a systematic multileaf collimator positional error manually introduced for volumetric‐modulated arc therapy. Four head and neck and esophagus VMAT plans were evaluated by measurement using an electronic portal imaging device and an ion chamber array. Each plan was copied and duplicated with a 1 mm systematic MLC positional error in the left leaf bank. Direct comparison of measurements for plans with and without the error permitted observational characteristics for quality assurance performance between detectors. A total of 48 different plans were evaluated for this testing. The mean percentage planar dose differences required to satisfy a 95% match between plans with and without the MLCPE were 5.2% ± 0.5% for the chamber array with gantry motion, 8.12% ± 1.04% for the chamber array with a static gantry at 0°, and 10.9% ± 1.4% for the EPID with gantry motion. It was observed that the EPID was less accurate due to overresponse of the MLCPE in the left leaf bank. The EPID always images bank‐A on the ipsilateral side of the detector, whereas for a chamber array or for a patient, that bank changes as it crosses the ‐90° or +90° position. A couch set detector system can reproduce the TPS calculated values most consistently. We recommend it as the most reliable patient specific QA system for MLC position error testing. This research is highlighted by the finding of up to 12.7% dose variation for H/N and esophagus cases for VMAT delivery, where the mere source of error was the stated clinically acceptability of 1 mm MLC position deviation of TG‐142.

PACS numbers: 87.56.‐v, 87.55.‐x, 07.57.KP, 29.40.‐n, 85.25.Pb

A Varian DynaLog file-based procedure for patient dose-volume histogram-based IMRT QA

In the present study, we describe a method based on the analysis of the dynamic MLC log files (DynaLog) generated by the controller of a Varian linear accelerator in order to perform patient‐specific IMRT QA. The DynaLog files of a Varian Millennium MLC, recorded during an IMRT treatment, can be processed using a MATLAB‐based code in order to generate the actual fluence for each beam and so recalculate the actual patient dose distribution using the Eclipse treatment planning system. The accuracy of the DynaLog‐based dose reconstruction procedure was assessed by introducing ten intended errors to perturb the fluence of the beams of a reference plan such that ten subsequent erroneous plans were generated. In‐phantom measurements with an ionization chamber (ion chamber) and planar dose measurements using an EPID system were performed to investigate the correlation between the measured dose changes and the expected ones detected by the reconstructed plans for the ten intended erroneous cases. Moreover, the method was applied to 20 cases of clinical plans for different locations (prostate, lung, breast, and head and neck). A dose‐volume histogram (DVH) metric was used to evaluate the impact of the delivery errors in terms of dose to the patient. The ionometric measurements revealed a significant positive correlation (R2=0.9993) between the variations of the dose induced in the erroneous plans with respect to the reference plan and the corresponding changes indicated by the DynaLog‐based reconstructed plans. The EPID measurements showed that the accuracy of the DynaLog‐based method to reconstruct the beam fluence was comparable with the dosimetric resolution of the portal dosimetry used in this work (3%/3 mm). The DynaLog‐based reconstruction method described in this study is a suitable tool to perform a patient‐specific IMRT QA. This method allows us to perform patient‐specific IMRT QA by evaluating the result based on the DVH metric of the planning CT image (patient DVH‐based IMRT QA).

PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT?

PURPOSE

Rotational IMRT has been adopted by many clinics for its promise to deliver treatments in a shorter amount of time than other conventional IMRT techniques. In this paper, the authors investigate whether RapidArc is more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT using fixed fields.

METHODS

Dosimetric effects of delivery uncertainties in dose rate, gantry angle, and MLC leaf positions were evaluated by incorporating these uncertainties into RapidArc and sliding window IMRT (SW IMRT) treatment plans for five head-and-neck and five prostate cases. Dose distributions and dose-volume histograms of original and modified plans were recalculated and compared using Gamma analysis and dose indices of planned treatment volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Results of Gamma analyses using passing criteria ranging from 1%-1 mm up to 5%-3 mm were reported.

RESULTS

Systematic shifts in MLC leaf bank positions of SW-IMRT cases resulted in 2-4 times higher average percent differences than RapidArc cases. Uniformly distributed random variations of 2 mm for active MLC leaves had a negligible effect on all dose distributions. Sliding window cases were much more sensitive to systematic shifts in gantry angle. Dose rate variations during RapidArc must be much larger than typical machine tolerances to affect dose distributions significantly; dynamic IMRT is inherently not susceptible to such variations.

CONCLUSIONS

RapidArc deliveries were found to be more tolerant to variations in gantry position and MLC leaf position than SW IMRT. This may be attributed to the fact that the average segmental field size or MLC leaf opening is much larger for RapidArc. Clinically acceptable treatments may be delivered successfully using RapidArc despite large fluctuations in dose rate and gantry position.

Physical and dosimetric characteristic of high-definition multileaf collimator (HDMLC) for SRS and IMRT

Physical and dosimetric characteristics of HDMLC were studied for SRS6, 6, and 10 MV X‐rays from Novalis Tx. This in‐built tertiary collimator consists of 60 pairs (32×0.25 cm; 26×0.5 cm and 2×0.7 cm) of leaves. Properties of HDMLC studied included alignment, readout and radiation field congruence, radiation penumbra, accuracy and reproducibility of leaf position and gap width, static and dynamic leaf shift, tongue‐and‐groove effect, leaf transmission and leakage, leaf travel speed, and delivery of dynamic conformal arc and IMRT. All tests were performed using a calibrated ionization chamber, film dosimetry and DynaLog file analysis. Alignment of leaves with isocenter plane was better than 0.03 cm at all gantry and collimator positions. The congruence of HDMLC readout and radiation field agreed to within ± 0.03cm for filed sizes ranging from 1×1 to 20×20 cm2. Mean 80% to 20% penumbra width parallel (perpendicular) to leaf motion was 0.24±0.05(0.21±0.02) cm, 0.37±0.12(0.29±0.07) cm, and 0.51±0.13(0.43±0.07) cm for SRS6, 6, and 10 MV X‐rays, respectively. Circular field penumbra was comparable to corresponding square field. Average penumbra of 1×20 cm2 field was effectively constant over off‐axis positions of up to 12 cm with mean value of 0.16 (± 0.01)cm at 1.5 cm depth and 0.38 (± 0.04)cm at 10 cm depth. Minimum and maximum effective penumbra along the straight diagonal edge of irregular fields increased from 0.3 and 0.32 cm at 70° steep angle to 0.35 and 0.56 cm at 20° steep angle. Modified Picket Fence test showed average FWHM of 0.18 cm and peak‐to‐peak distance of 1.99 cm for 0.1 cm band and 2 cm interband separation. Dynamic multileaf collimation (DMLC) output factor remained within ± 1% for 6 MV and ± 0.5% for 10 MV X‐rays at all gantry positions, and was reproducible within ± 0.5% over a period of 14 months. The static leaf shift was 0.03 cm for all energies, while dynamic leaf shift was 0.044 cm for 10 MV and 0.039 cm for both SRS6 and 6 MV X‐rays. The dose depression and corresponding tongue‐and‐groove size were 24% and 0.17 cm for 6 MV and 19% and 0.20 cm for 10 MV X‐rays. Average transmission through HDMLC was 1.09%, 1.14% and 1.34% for SRS6, 6 and 10 MV X‐rays. Analysis of DynaLog files for leaf speed test in arc dynamic mode, delivery test of dynamic conformal arc, and step‐and‐shoot and sliding window IMRT showed at least 95% or more of the error counts had misplacements < 0.2cm, with maximum root mean square (RMS) error value calculated at 0.13 cm. Accurate and reproducible leaf position and gap width, and less leakage and small consistent penumbra over the fields demonstrate HDMLC suitable for high‐dose resolution SRS and IMRT.

PACS number: 87.56.N‐, 87.55.Qr, 87.50.cm, 87.55.de, 87.53.Ly

The inter- and intrafraction reproducibilities of three common IMRT delivery techniques

PURPOSE

Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery requires higher precision than conventional 3D treatment delivery because of the sensitivity of the resulting dose to small geometric misalignment of the modulated beamlets. The chosen treatment delivery technique will affect the treatment precision in different ways, based on the characteristics of the delivery method. Delivery using a multileaf collimator (MLC) can reduce treatment time and therapist workload, but typically requires a greater number of monitor units and the fields are prone to both systematic and random leaf positioning errors. An alternative to MLC-based fields, patient specific brass compensators, do not suffer from these leaf positioning errors. In our study, we set out to investigate which delivery method will provide the highest levels of dosimetric reproducibility and the minimum amount of interfraction variability.

METHODS

In our study, a seven field IMRT plan for a head and neck treatment was created using the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system and the intensity maps for each field were obtained. The intensity maps of the fields were delivered with a Varian 2100C/D linear accelerator, using solid compensators and sliding window (SW) and step-and-shoot (SS) MLC segments. Three fields were selected from the seven-beam IMRT plan for comparison. Analysis was carried out using the MatriXX ion chamber array, radiochromic film, and Varian dynalog files.

RESULTS

Our results show that the error in MLC leaf positioning has no gantry angle dependence. The compensator and SW deliveries showed excellent agreement, even when stricter than usual gamma criteria were applied. However, we noted that under these strict conditions, the SS field had at least ten times more pixels out of range than did the compensators. When using step-and-shoot MLC fields, it was observed that the increase in dose rate or the increase of MU/segment degrades the quality of the plan. Analysis of the dynalog files showed that while each individual field had its own propensity for error, all fields showed the same trend: a greater percentage of time the leaves are out of position as dose rate increases, MUs decrease, or both.

CONCLUSIONS

The compensator-based field and both types of MLC-based fields have MatriXX results that are within the clinically acceptable tolerance of 3% dose difference and 2 mm DTA. However, when the criteria are tightened, it becomes evident that the compensators have a definite advantage over their comparable MLC-based competitors in terms of interfraction reproducibility. Fewer monitor units are required to deliver each portal, potentially improving patient outcomes and reducing unwanted side effects to both patients and therapists. In centers without MLC, compensators represent a simple and cost effective way to offer patients state of the art treatment. Based on the results of this study, compensator-based IMRT is a reliable, viable option for use in clinics both with and without MLC-equipped linacs.

Detailed analysis of latencies in image-based dynamic MLC tracking

PURPOSE

Previous measurements of the accuracy of image-based real-time dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) tracking show that the major contributor to errors is latency, i.e., the delay between target motion and MLC response. Therefore the purpose of this work was to develop a method for detailed analysis of latency contributions during image-based DMLC tracking.

METHODS

A prototype DMLC tracking system integrated with a linear accelerator was used for tracking a phantom with an embedded fiducial marker during treatment delivery. The phantom performed a sinusoidal motion. Real-time target localization was based on x-ray images acquired either with a portal imager or a kV imager mounted orthogonal to the treatment beam. Each image was stored in a file on the imaging workstation. A marker segmentation program opened the image file, determined the marker position in the image, and transferred it to the DMLC tracking program. This program estimated the three-dimensional target position by a single-imager method and adjusted the MLC aperture to the target position. Imaging intervals deltaT(image) from 150 to 1000 ms were investigated for both kV and MV imaging. After the experiments, the recorded images were synchronized with MLC log files generated by the MLC controller and tracking log files generated by the tracking program. This synchronization allowed temporal analysis of the information flow for each individual image from acquisition to completed MLC adjustment. The synchronization also allowed investigation of the MLC adjustment dynamics on a considerably finer time scale than the 50 ms time resolution of the MLC log files.

RESULTS

For deltaT(image) = 150 ms, the total time from image acquisition to completed MLC adjustment was 380 +/- 9 ms for MV and 420 +/- 12 ms for kV images. The main part of this time was from image acquisition to completed image file writing (272 ms for MV and 309 ms for kV). Image file opening (38 ms), marker segmentation (4 ms), MLC position calculation (16 ms), and MLC adjustment (52 ms) were considerably faster. For deltaT(image) = 1000 ms, the total time from image acquisition to completed MLC adjustment increased to 1030 +/- 62 ms (MV) and 1330 +/- 52 ms (kV) mainly because of delayed image file writing. The MLC adjustment duration was constant 52 ms (+/- 3 ms) for MLC adjustments below 1.1 mm and increased linearly for larger MLC adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS

A method for detailed time analysis of each individual real-time position signal for DMLC tracking has been developed and applied to image-based tracking. The method allows identification of the major contributors to latency and therefore a focus for reducing this latency. The method could be an important tool for the reconstruction of the delivered target dose during DMLC tracking as it provides synchronization between target motion and MLC motion.

The effect of gantry and collimator angles on leaf limited velocity and position in dynamic multileaf collimator intensity-modulated radiation therapy

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the limiting velocity (LV) of a multileaf collimator and the leaf position in various collimator and gantry angles. Both leading leaves and trailing leaves began to move with a constant acceleration from 0 to 4 cm s(-1). When the beam hold occurred, the leaf velocity was defined as the leaf LV. Dynamic irradiation was performed at eight gantry angles of every 45 degrees with three different collimator angles. The analysis of the LV and the leaf position was performed with a log file from a leaf motion controller. The mean LVs for Varian Clinac 21EX (21EX) ranged from 2.51 to 3.10 cm s(-1). The mean LVs for Clinac 600C ranged from 2.91 to 3.12 cm s(-1). When only central 5 mm leaves of 21EX moved, LVs were significantly higher than those when all 60 pairs of leaf moved, while the leaf position inconsistencies of the two accelerators were within 1 mm at the leaf velocities from 0.5 to 2.0 cm s(-1). It was recognized that the LV was affected by gravity. This measurement method can be utilized as routine quality assurance for a dynamic multileaf collimator (DMLC) is and easily reproducible.

Dosimetric effects of rotational output variation and x-ray target degradation on helical tomotherapy plans

In this study, two potential sources of IMRT delivery error have been identified for helical tomotherapy delivery using the HiART system (TomoTherapy, Inc., Madison, WI): Rotational output variation and target degradation. The HiArt system is known to have output variation, typically about +/- 2%, due to the absence of a dose servo system. On the HiArt system, x-ray target replacement is required approximately every 10-12 months due to target degradation. Near the end of target life, the target thins and causes a decrease in the beam energy and a softening of the beam profile at the lateral edges of the beam. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the dosimetric effects of rotational output variation and target degradation by modeling their effects and incorporating them into recalculated treatment plans for three clinical scenarios: Head and neck, partial breast, and prostate. Models were created to emulate both potential sources of error. For output variation, a model was created using a sine function to match the amplitude (+/- 2%), frequency, and phase of the measured rotational output variation data. A second model with a hypothetical variation of +/- 7% was also created to represent the largest variation that could exist without violating the allowable dose window in the delivery system. A measured beam profile near the end of target life was used to create a modified beam profile model for the target degradation. These models were then incorporated into the treatment plan by modifying the leaf opening times in the delivery sinogram. A new beam model was also created to mimic the change in beam energy seen near the end of target life. The plans were then calculated using a research version of the PLANNED ADAPTIVE treatment planning software from TomoTherapy, Inc. Three plans were evaluated in this study: Head and neck, partial breast, and prostate. The D50 of organs at risk, the D95 for planning target volumes (PTVs), and the local dose difference were used to evaluate the changes in the modified treatment plans. Dosimetric effects from rotational variation were found to be low (less than 1%) for a typical variation of +/- 2%. Even using a variation of +/- 7%, DVH values and dose distributions were altered by less than 2% for all scenarios. The dosimetric effects of target degradation were found to be slightly more significant. For a model using data taken just before target failure, dosimetric differences of 2%-4% were observed in the recalculated plans when compared to the original plans. The largest effects (up to 4.5%) were observed for PTVs that were located at deeper depths as seen in the prostate plan. Overall, the recalculated plans show that the dosimetric effects of rotational variation and target degradation are on the order of 1%-4% for helical tomotherapy on the HiART system and do not pose a risk for significant deviations from the original treatment plan.

On the sensitivity of patient-specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors

Accurate multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positioning plays an essential role in the effective implementation of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This work evaluates the sensitivity of current patient-specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedures to minor MLC leaf positioning errors. Random errors of up to 2 mm and systematic errors of +/-1 mm and +/-2 mm in MLC leaf positions were introduced into 8 clinical IMRT patient plans (totaling 53 fields). Planar dose distributions calculated with modified plans were compared to dose distributions measured with both radiochromic films and a diode matrix. The agreement between calculation and measurement was evaluated using both absolute distance-to-agreement (DTA) analysis and gamma index with 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. It was found that both the radiochromic film and the diode matrix could only detect systematic errors on the order of 2 mm or above. The diode array had larger sensitivity than film due to its excellent detector response (such as small variation, linear response, etc.). No difference was found between DTA analysis and gamma index in terms of the sensitivity to MLC positioning errors. Higher sensitivity was observed with 2%/2 mm than with 3%/3 mm in general. When using the diode array and 2%/2 mm criterion, the IMRT QA procedure showed strongest sensitivity to MLC position errors and, at the same time, achieved clinically acceptable passing rates. More accurate dose calculation and measurement would further enhance the sensitivity of patient-specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors. However, considering the significant dosimetric effect such MLC errors could cause, patient-specific IMRT QA should be combined with a periodic MLC QA program in order to guarantee the accuracy of IMRT delivery.

IMAT-SIM: A new method for the clinical dosimetry of intensity-modulated arc therapy (IMAT)

Dynamic-gantry multi-leaf collimator (MLC)-based, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMAT) has been proposed as an alternative to tomotherapy. In contrast to fixed-gantry, MLC-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), where commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) or dosimetric analysis software currently provide many automatic tools enabling two-dimensional (2D) detectors (matrix or electronic portal imaging devices) to be used as measurement systems, for the planning and delivery of IMAT these tools are generally not available. A new dosimetric method is proposed to overcome some of these limitations. By converting the MLC files of IMAT beams from arc to fixed gantry-angle modality, while keeping the leaf trajectories equal, IMAT plans can be both simulated in the TPS and executed as fixed-gantry, sliding-window DMLC treatments. In support of this idea, measurements of six IMAT plans, in their double form of original arcs and converted fixed-gantry DMLC beams (IMAT-SIM), have been compared among themselves and with their corresponding IMAT-SIM TPS calculations. Radiographic films and a 2D matrix ionization chamber detector rigidly attached to the accelerator gantry and set into a cubic plastic phantom have been used for these measurements. Finally, the TPS calculation-algorithm implementations of both conformal dynamic MLC arc (CD-ARC) modalities, used for clinical IMAT calculations, and DMLC modalities (IMAT-SIM), proposed as references for validating IMAT plan dose-distributions, have been compared. The comparisons between IMAT and IMAT-SIM delivered beams have shown very good agreement with similar shapes of the measured dose profiles which can achieve a mean deviation (+/-2sigma) of (0.35+/-0.16) mm and (0.37+/-0.14)%, with maximum deviations of 1.5 mm and 3%. Matching the IMAT measurements with their corresponding IMAT-SIM data calculated by the TPS, these deviations remain in the range of (1.01+/-0.28) mm and (-1.76+/-0.42)%, with maximums of 3 mm and 5%, limits generally accepted for IMRT plan dose validation. Differences in the algorithm implementations have been found, but by correcting CD-ARC calculations for the leaf-end transmission offset (LTO) effect the IMAT and IMAT-SIM simulations agree well in terms of final dose distributions. The differences found between IMAT and the IMAT-SIM beam measurements are due to the different controls of leaf motion (via electron gun delay in the latter) that cannot be used in the former to correct possible speed variations in the rotation of the gantry. As the IMAT delivered beams are identical to what the patient will receive during the treatment, and the IMAT-SIM beam calculations made by the TPS reproduce exactly the treatment plans of that patient, the accuracy of this new dosimetric method is comparable to that which is currently used for static IMRT. This new approach of 2D-detector dosimetry, together with the commissioning, quality-assurance, and preclinical dosimetric procedures currently used for IMRT techniques, can be applied and extended to any kind of dynamic-gantry MLC-based treatment modality either CD-ARC or IMAT.

Synchronized dynamic dose reconstruction

Variations in target volume position between and during treatment fractions can lead to measurable differences in the dose distribution delivered to each patient. Current methods to estimate the ongoing cumulative delivered dose distribution make idealized assumptions about individual patient motion based on average motions observed in a population of patients. In the delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with a multi-leaf collimator (MLC), errors are introduced in both the implementation and delivery processes. In addition, target motion and MLC motion can lead to dosimetric errors from interplay effects. All of these effects may be of clinical importance. Here we present a method to compute delivered dose distributions for each treatment beam and fraction, which explicitly incorporates synchronized real-time patient motion data and real-time fluence and machine configuration data. This synchronized dynamic dose reconstruction method properly accounts for the two primary classes of errors that arise from delivering IMRT with an MLC: (a) Interplay errors between target volume motion and MLC motion, and (b) Implementation errors, such as dropped segments, dose over/under shoot, faulty leaf motors, tongue-and-groove effect, rounded leaf ends, and communications delays. These reconstructed dose fractions can then be combined to produce high-quality determinations of the dose distribution actually received to date, from which individualized adaptive treatment strategies can be determined.

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.

Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification using MLC log files and R/V outputs

Conventional IMRT dose verification using film and ion chamber measurements is useful but limited with respect to the actual dose distribution received by the patient. The Monte Carlo simulation has been introduced as an independent dose verification tool for IMRT using the patient CT data and MLC leaf sequence files, which validates the dose calculation accuracy but not the plan delivery accuracy. In this work, we propose a Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification method that reconstructs the patient dose distribution using the patient CT, actual beam data based on the information from the record and verify system (R/V), and the MLC log files obtained during dose delivery that record the MLC leaf positions and MUs delivered. Comparing the Monte Carlo dose calculation with the original IMRT plan using these data simultaneously validates the accuracy of both the IMRT dose calculation and beam delivery. Such log file based Monte Carlo simulations are expected to be employed as a useful and efficient IMRT QA modality to validate the dose delivered to the patient. We have run Monte Carlo simulations for eight IMRT prostate plans using this method and the results for the target dose were consistent with the original CORVUS treatment plans to within 3.0% and 2.0% with and without heterogeneity corrections in the dose calculation. However, significant dose deviations in nearby critical structures have been observed. The results showed that up to 9.0% of the bladder dose and up to 38.0% of the rectum dose, to which leaf position errors were found to contribute <2%, were underestimated by the CORVUS treatment planning system. The concept of average leaf position error has been defined to analyze MLC leaf position errors for an IMRT plan. A linear correlation between the target dose error and the average position error has been found based on log file based Monte Carlo simulations, showing that an average position error of 0.2 mm can result in a target dose error of about 1.0%.

Maximum MLC opening effect in dynamic delivery of IMRT: leaf-positional analysis

The analysis of dynamic multileaf collimator (MLC) positions for the delivered intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans is crucial in that it may capture dose delivery problems otherwise difficult to observe and quantify in the conventional dosimetric measurements with film or with an ionization chamber. In some IMRT systems, delivery of IMRT fields starts with a maximum MLC opening (roughly the shape of the target in the beam's-eye view) and then proceeds to the subsequent dynamic MLC subfields. No irradiation is required in going from the initial segment (maximum opening) to the next one, and theoretically, no dose should be delivered in that initial moment. However, due to a finite sampling time of the MLC controller, the finite speed of the MLC, and a finite leaf tolerance, there may be some dose delivered between the first and the second segment. The amount of the excess dose is higher for larger dose rates and for a smaller number of the total monitor units per IMRT field. The magnitude of the dose errors could be in the order of a few percent. Effects similar to the maximum MLC opening may occur in other situations as well, for instance, when leaves are forced to move over large distances in a short time. Confounding this are dose errors due to the uncertainty in the MLC transmission. The analysis of the actual leaf positions recorded in the dynamic MLC log file is helpful in differentiating between the two types of errors and in determining the optimal dynamic MLC delivery parameters.

An extensive log-file analysis of step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy segment delivery errors

We present a study to evaluate the monitor unit (MU), dosimetric, and leaf-motion errors found in the delivery of 91 step-and-shoot IMRT treatment plans performed at three nominal dose rates using a dual modality high energy Linac (Varian 2100 C/D, Varian Medical Systems Inc., Palo Alto, CA) equipped with a 120-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC). The analysis was performed by studying log files generated by the MLC controller system. Recent studies by our group have validated that the automatically generated MLC log files accurately record the actual system delivery. A total of 635 beams were delivered at three nominal dose rates: 100, 300, and 600 MU/min. The log files were manually retrieved and analysis software was developed to extract the recorded MU delivery and leaf positions for each segment. Our analysis revealed that the magnitude of segment MU errors were independent of the planned segment MUs. Segment MU errors were found to increase with dose rate having maximum errors per segment of +/-1.8 MU at 600 MU/min, +/-0.8 MU at 300 MU/min, and +/-0.5 MU at 100 MU/min. The total absolute MU error in each plan was observed to increase with the number of plan segments, with the trend increasing more rapidly for higher dose rates. Three dimensional dose distributions were recomputed based on the observed segment MU errors for three plans with large cumulative absolute MU errors. Comparison with the original treatment plans indicated no clinically significant consequences due to these errors. In addition, approximately 80% of the total segment deliveries reported at least one collimator leaf moving at least 1 mm (projected at isocenter) during segment delivery. Such errors occur near the end of segment delivery and have been previously observed by our group using a fast video-based electronic portal imaging device. At 600 MU/min, between 5% and 23% of the plan MUs were delivered during leaf motion that had exceeded a 1 mm position tolerance. These leaf motion errors were not included in the treatment plan recalculations performed in this study.