A novel EPID-based MLC QA method with log files achieving submillimeter accuracy

The purpose of this study is to develop an electronic portal imaging device-based multi-leaf collimator calibration procedure using log files. Picket fence fields with 2-14 mm nominal strip widths were performed and normalized by open field. Normalized pixel intensity profiles along the direction of leaf motion for each leaf pair were taken. Three independent algorithms and an integration method derived from them were developed according to the valley value, valley area, full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of the profile, and the abutment width of the leaf pairs obtained from the log files. Three data processing schemes (Scheme A, Scheme B, and Scheme C) were performed based on different data processing methods. To test the usefulness and robustness of the algorithm, the known leaf position errors along the direction of perpendicular leaf motion via the treatment planning system were introduced in the picket fence field with nominal 5, 8, and 11 mm. Algorithm tests were performed every 2 weeks over 4 months. According to the log files, about 17.628% and 1.060% of the leaves had position errors beyond ± 0.1 and ± 0.2 mm, respectively. The absolute position errors of the algorithm tests for different data schemes were 0.062 ± 0.067 (Scheme A), 0.041 ± 0.045 (Scheme B), and 0.037 ± 0.043 (Scheme C). The absolute position errors of the algorithms developed by Scheme C were 0.054 ± 0.063 (valley depth method), 0.040 ± 0.038 (valley area method), 0.031 ± 0.031 (FWHM method), and 0.021 ± 0.024 (integrated method). For the efficiency and robustness test of the algorithm, the absolute position errors of the integration method of Scheme C were 0.020 ± 0.024 (5 mm), 0.024 ± 0.026 (8 mm), and 0.018 ± 0.024 (11 mm). Different data processing schemes could affect the accuracy of the developed algorithms. The integration method could integrate the benefits of each algorithm, which improved the level of robustness and accuracy of the algorithm. The integration method can perform multi-leaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance with an accuracy of 0.1 mm. This method is simple, effective, robust, quantitative, and can detect a wide range of MLC leaf position errors.

Assessing quality assurance of multi-leaf collimator using the structural similarity index

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the viability of utilizing the Structural Similarity Index (SSI*) as an innovative imaging metric for quality assurance (QA) of the multi-leaf collimator (MLC). Additionally, we compared the results obtained through SSI* with those derived from a conventional Gamma index test for three types of Varian machines (Trilogy, Truebeam, and Edge) over a 12-week period of MLC QA in our clinic.

METHOD

To assess sensitivity to MLC positioning errors, we designed a 1 cm slit on the reference MLC, subsequently shifted by 0.5-5 mm on the target MLC. For evaluating sensitivity to output error, we irradiated five 25 cm × 25 cm open fields on the portal image with varying Monitor Units (MUs) of 96-100. We compared SSI* and Gamma index tests using three linear accelerator (LINAC) machines: Varian Trilogy, Truebeam, and Edge, with MLC leaf widths of 1, 0.5, and 0.25 mm. Weekly QA included VMAT and static field modes, with Picket fence test images acquired. Mechanical uncertainties related to the LINAC head, electronic portal imaging device (EPID), and MLC during gantry rotation and leaf motion were monitored.

RESULTS

The Gamma index test started detecting the MLC shift at a threshold of 4 mm, whereas the SSI* metric showed sensitivity to shifts as small as 2 mm. Moreover, the Gamma index test identified dose changes at 95MUs, indicating a 5% dose difference based on the distance to agreement (DTA)/dose difference (DD) criteria of 1 mm/3%. In contrast, the SSI* metric alerted to dose differences starting from 97MUs, corresponding to a 3% dose difference. The Gamma index test passed all measurements conducted on each machine. However, the SSI* metric rejected all measurements from the Edge and Trilogy machines and two from the Truebeam.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that the SSI* exhibits greater sensitivity than the Gamma index test in detecting MLC positioning errors and dose changes between static and VMAT modes. The SSI* metric outperformed the Gamma index test regarding sensitivity across these parameters.

Variation in Elekta iView electronic portal imager pixel scale factor with gantry angle, and impact on multi-leaf collimator quality assurance

For Elekta Agility linear accelerators, the iViewGT electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is positioned at a nominal X‐Ray source‐to‐panel distance of 1600 mm. For display, image registration, and data processing purposes, the image pixels are scaled to spatial units at the treatment isocenter plane. This is achieved by applying a pixel scaling factor (PSF). During this investigation, the dependence of the PSF at cardinal gantry angles was determined along with the resulting effects on the multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance (QA) results for three linear accelerators (linacs). The PSF was found to vary by 0.0018–0.0022 mm/pixel during gantry rotation, which resulted in variations in the mean MLC reported error of up to 0.8 mm at 100 mm off‐axis with the gantry rotated to 180°. Measurement and application of a gantry angle–specific PSF is a simple process that can be implemented to improve the accuracy of EPID‐based MLC QA at cardinal gantry angles.

Evaluation of QA software system analysis for the static picket fence test

Intensity modulation treatments are widely used in radiotherapy because of many known advantages. In this context, the picket fence test (PF) is a relevant test to check the Multileaf Collimator (MLC) performances. So this work compares and evaluates three analysis platforms for the PF used routinely by three different institutions. This study covers two linear accelerators (Linac) with two MLC types, a Millenium 120 MLC and Millenium 120 High Definition MLC respectively on a Varian Truebeam and Truebeam STx. Both linacs include an As 1200 portal imager (EPID). From a reference PF plan, MLC errors have been introduced to modify the slits in position or width (shifts from 0.1 to 0.5 mm on one or both banks). Then errors have been defined on the EPID to investigate detection system deviations (signal sensitivity and position variations). Finally, 110 DICOM‐RT images have been generated and analyzed by each software system. All software systems have shown good performances to quantify the position errors, even though the leaf pair identifications can be wrong in some cases regarding the analysis method considered. The slit width measurement (not calculated by all software systems) has shown good sensitivity, but some quantification difficulties have been highlighted regardless of the analysis method used. Linked to the expected accuracy of the PF test, the imager variations have demonstrated considerable influence in the results. Differences in the results and the analysis methods have been pointed out for each software system. The results can be helpful to optimize the settings of each analysis software system depending on expectations and treatment modalities of each institution.

AAPM Task Group 198 Report: An implementation guide for TG 142 quality assurance of medical accelerators

The charges on this task group (TG) were as follows: (a) provide specific procedural guidelines for performing the tests recommended in TG 142; (b) provide estimate of the range of time, appropriate personnel, and qualifications necessary to complete the tests in TG 142; and (c) provide sample daily, weekly, monthly, or annual quality assurance (QA) forms. Many of the guidelines in this report are drawn from the literature and are included in the references. When literature was not available, specific test methods reflect the experiences of the TG members (e.g., a test method for door interlock is self-evident with no literature necessary). In other cases, the technology is so new that no literature for test methods was available. Given broad clinical adaptation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), which is not a specific topic of TG 142, several tests and criteria specific to VMAT were added.

Effect of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Position Error Determined by Picket Fence Test on Gamma Index Value in Patient-Specific Quality Assurance of Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy Plans

Aim The correlation between the MLC QA (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) results of the picket fence test created with intentional errors and the patient's quality assurance (QA) evaluation was investigated to assess the impact of multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning error on patient QA. Materials and methods The picket fence, including error-free and intentional MLC errors, defined in Bank In, Bank Out, and Bank Both were analyzed using MLC QA. The QA of 15 plans consisting of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), and conventionally fractionated volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) acquired with electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) was evaluated in the presence of error-free and MLC errors. The QA of plans were analyzed with 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. Results The passing rates of the picket fence test were 97%, 92%, 91%, and 87% for error-free and intentional errors. The criterion of 3%/3 mm wasn't able to detect an MLC error for either SRS/SBRT or conventionally fractionated VMAT. The criterion of 2%/2mm was more sensitive to detect MLC error for the conventionally fractionated VMAT than SRS/SBRT. While only two of SBRT plans had <90%, four of conventionally fractionated VMAT plans had a <90% passing rate. Conclusion We found that the systematic MLC positioning errors defined with picket fence have a smaller but measurable impact on SRS/SBRT than the VMAT plan for a conventionally fractionated and relatively complex plan such as head and neck and endometrium cases.

Design of a Reconfigurable Quality Assurance Phantom for Verifying the Spatial Accuracy of Radiosurgery Treatments for Multiple Brain Metastases

Radiation therapy frequently involves highly customized and complex treatments, employing sophisticated equipment, that require extensive patient-specific validation to verify the accuracy of the treatment plan as part of the clinical quality assurance (QA) process. This paper introduces a novel, reconfigurable QA phantom developed for the spatial validation of radiosurgery treatments of multiple brain metastases (MBM). This phantom works in conjunction with existing electronic portal imaging detector (EPID) technology to rapidly verify MBM treatment plans with submillimeter accuracy. The device provides a 12 × 12 × 12 cm3 active volume and multiple, independently configurable markers, in the form of 3 mm diameter radiopaque spheres, which serve as surrogates for brain lesions. The device is lightweight, portable, can be setup by a single operator, and is adaptable for use with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) techniques and stereotactic linear accelerators (LINACs). This paper presents the device design and fabrication, along with initial testing and validation results both in the laboratory, using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and under simulated clinical conditions, using a radiosurgery treatment plan with 15 lesions. The device has been shown to place markers in space with a 0.45 mm root-mean-square error, which is satisfactory for initial clinical use. The device is undergoing further testing under simulated clinical conditions and improvements to reduce marker positional error.

Efficient quality assurance method with automated data acquisition of a single phantom setup to determine radiation and imaging isocenter congruence

We developed a quality assurance (QA) method to determine the isocenter congruence of Optical Surface Monitoring System (OSMS, Varian, CA, USA), kilovoltage (kV), and megavoltage (MV) imaging, and the radiation isocenter using a single setup of the OSMS phantom for frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) treatment. After aligning the phantom to the OSMS isocenter, a cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) of the phantom was acquired and registered to a computed tomography (CT) scan of the phantom to determine the CBCT isocenter. Without moving the phantom, MV and kV images were simultaneously acquired at four gantry angles to localize MV and kV isocenters. Then, Winston‐Lutz (W‐L) test images of the central BB in the phantom were acquired to analyze the radiation isocenter. The gantry and couch were automatically controlled using the TrueBeam Developer Mode during MV, kV, and W‐L image acquisition. All the images were acquired weekly for 17 weeks to track the congruence of all the imaging modalities' isocenter in six‐dimensional (6D) translations and rotations, and the radiation isocenter in three‐dimensional (3D) translations. The shifts of isocenters of all imaging modalities and the radiation isocenter from the OSMS isocenter were within 0.2 mm and 0.2° on average over 17 weeks. The maximum discrepancy between OSMS and other imaging modalities or radiation isocenters was 0.8 mm and 0.3°. However, systematic shifts of radiation isocenter anteriorly and laterally relative to the OSMS isocenter were observed. The measured discrepancies were consistent from week‐to‐week except for two weeks when the isocenter discrepancies of 0.8 mm were noted due to drifts of the OSMS isocenter. Once recalibration was performed on OSMS, the discrepancy was reduced to 0.3 mm and 0.2°.By performing the proposed QA on a weekly basis, the isocenter congruencies of multiple imaging systems and radiation isocenter were validated for a linear accelerator.

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.

Quality assurance of geometric accuracy based on an electronic portal imaging device and log data analysis for Dynamic WaveArc irradiation

The purpose of this study was to develop a simple verification method for the routine quality assurance (QA) of Dynamic WaveArc (DWA) irradiation using electronic portal imaging device (EPID) images and log data analysis. First, an automatic calibration method utilizing the outermost multileaf collimator (MLC) slits was developed to correct the misalignment between the center of the EPID and the beam axis. Moreover, to verify the detection accuracy of the MLC position according to the EPID images, various positions of the MLC with intentional errors in the range 0.1–1 mm were assessed. Second, to validate the geometric accuracy during DWA irradiation, tests were designed in consideration of three indices. Test 1 evaluated the accuracy of the MLC position. Test 2 assessed dose output consistency with variable dose rate (160–400 MU/min), gantry speed (2.2–6°/s), and ring speed (0.5–2.7°/s). Test 3 validated dose output consistency with variable values of the above parameters plus MLC speed (1.6–4.2 cm/s). All tests were delivered to the EPID and compared with those obtained using a stationary radiation beam with a 0° gantry angle. Irradiation log data were recorded simultaneously. The 0.1‐mm intentional error on the MLC position could be detected by the EPID, which is smaller than the EPID pixel size. In Test 1, the MLC slit widths agreed within 0.20 mm of their exposed values. The averaged root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of the dose outputs was less than 0.8% in Test 2 and Test 3. Using log data analysis in Test 3, the RMSE between the planned and recorded data was 0.1 mm, 0.12°, and 0.07° for the MLC position, gantry angle, and ring angle, respectively. The proposed method is useful for routine QA of the accuracy of DWA.

Correlation between gamma passing rate and complexity of IMRT plan due to MLC position errors

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the correlation between the susceptibility of the γ passing rate of IMRT plans to the multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position errors and a quantitative plan complexity metric.

METHODS

Twenty patients were selected for this study. For each patient, two IMRT plans were generated using sliding window and step-&-shoot techniques, respectively. Modulation complexity score (MCS) was calculated for all IMRT plans, and symmetric MLC leaf bank errors, ranging from 0.3 mm to 1 mm, were introduced. Original and modified plans were delivered using Varian's Clinac iX. The obtained dose distribution using ArcCHECK was then compared with the TPS calculated dose distribution of the original plans. 3D gamma analysis was performed for each verification with passing criteria of 2%/2 mm. The γ passing rate decreasing gradient were calculated to evaluate relationship between variation of γ passing rate due to MLC errors and complexity.

RESULTS

A linear regression analysis was applied between γ gradient and complexity, and the results showed a linear correlation (R² = 0.81 and 0.82 for open and closed MLC error types, respectively) indicating the more complex plans are more susceptible to MLC leaf bank errors. Meanwhile, correlation of re-normalized γ passing rate and complexity for all errors scenarios also presented a strong correlation (r > 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The statistics results revealed variation relationship of dosimetry robust of plans with various complexities to MLC errors. Our results also suggested that the observed susceptibility is independent of the delivery techniques.

A novel and independent method for time-resolved gantry angle quality assurance for VMAT

Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment delivery requires three key dynamic components; gantry rotation, dose rate modulation, and multi‐leaf collimator motion, which are all simultaneously varied during the delivery. Misalignment of the gantry angle can potentially affect clinical outcome due to the steep dose gradients and complex MLC shapes involved. It is essential to develop independent gantry angle quality assurance (QA) appropriate to VMAT that can be performed simultaneously with other key VMAT QA testing. In this work, a simple and inexpensive fully independent gantry angle measurement methodology was developed that allows quantitation of the gantry angle accuracy as a function of time. This method is based on the analysis of video footage of a “Double dot” pattern attached to the front cover of the linear accelerator that consists of red and green circles printed on A4 paper sheet. A standard mobile phone is placed on the couch to record the video footage during gantry rotation. The video file is subsequently analyzed and used to determine the gantry angle from each video frame using the relative position of the two dots. There were two types of validation tests performed including the static mode with manual gantry angle rotation and dynamic mode with three complex test plans. The accuracy was 0.26° ± 0.04° and 0.46° ± 0.31° (mean ± 1 SD) for the static and dynamic modes, respectively. This method is user friendly, cost effective, easy to setup, has high temporal resolution, and can be combined with existing time‐resolved method for QA of MLC and dose rate to form a comprehensive set of procedures for time‐resolved QA of VMAT delivery system.

A quantitative method to the analysis of MLC leaf position and speed based on EPID and EBT3 film for dynamic IMRT treatment with different types of MLC

A quantitative method based on the electronic portal imaging system (EPID) and film was developed for MLC position and speed testing; this method was used for three MLC types (Millennium, MLCi, and Agility MLC). To determine the leaf position, a picket fence designed by the dynamic (DMLC) model was used. The full‐width half‐maximum (FWHM) values of each gap measured by EPID and EBT3 were converted to the gap width using the FWHM versus nominal gap width relationship. The algorithm developed for the picket fence analysis was able to quantify the gap width, the distance between gaps, and each individual leaf position. To determine the leaf speed, a 0.5 × 20 cm²MLC‐defined sliding gap was applied across a 14 × 20 cm² symmetry field. The linacs ran at a fixed‐dose rate. The use of different monitor units (MUs) for this test led to different leaf speeds. The effect of leaf transmission was considered in a speed accuracy analysis. The difference between the EPID and film results for the MLC position is less than 0.1 mm. For the three MLC types, twice the standard deviation (2 SD) is provided; 0.2, 0.4, and 0.4 mm for gap widths of three MLC types, and 0.1, 0.2, and 0.2 mm for distances between gaps. The individual leaf positions deviate from the preset positions within 0.1 mm. The variations in the speed profiles for the EPID and EBT3 results are consistent, but the EPID results are slightly better than the film results. Different speeds were measured for each MLC type. For all three MLC types, speed errors increase with increasing speed. The analysis speeds deviate from the preset speeds within approximately 0.01 cm s⁻¹. This quantitative analysis of MLC position and speed provides an intuitive evaluation for MLC quality assurance (QA).

Evaluation of the truebeam machine performance check (MPC): mechanical and collimation checks

Machine performance check (MPC) is an automated and integrated image‐based tool for verification of beam and geometric performance of the TrueBeam linac. The aims of the study were to evaluate the performance of the MPC geometric tests relevant to beam collimation (MLC and jaws) and mechanical systems (gantry and collimator). Evaluation was performed by comparing MPC to QA tests performed routinely in the department over a 4‐month period. The MPC MLC tests were compared to an in‐house analysis of the Picket Fence test. The jaw positions were compared against an in‐house EPID‐based method, against the traditional light field and graph paper technique and against the Daily QA3 device. The MPC collimator and gantry were compared against spirit level and the collimator further compared to Picket Fence analysis. In all cases, the results from the routine QA procedure were presented in a form directly comparable to MPC to allow a like‐to‐like comparison. The sensitivity of MPC was also tested by deliberately miscalibrating the appropriate linac parameter. The MPC MLC was found to agree with Picket Fence to within 0.3 mm and the MPC jaw check agreed with in‐house EPID measurements within 0.2 mm. All MPC parameters were found to be accurately sensitive to deliberately introduced calibration errors. For the tests evaluated, MPC appears to be suitable as a daily QA check device.

Virtual EPID standard phantom audit (VESPA) for remote IMRT and VMAT credentialing

A virtual EPID standard phantom audit (VESPA) has been implemented for remote auditing in support of facility credentialing for clinical trials using IMRT and VMAT. VESPA is based on published methods and a clinically established IMRT QA procedure, here extended to multi-vendor equipment. Facilities are provided with comprehensive instructions and CT datasets to create treatment plans. They deliver the treatment directly to their EPID without any phantom or couch in the beam. In addition, they deliver a set of simple calibration fields per instructions. Collected EPID images are uploaded electronically. In the analysis, the dose is projected back into a virtual cylindrical phantom. 3D gamma analysis is performed. 2D dose planes and linear dose profiles are provided and can be considered when needed for clarification. In addition, using a virtual flat-phantom, 2D field-by-field or arc-by-arc gamma analyses are performed. Pilot facilities covering a range of planning and delivery systems have performed data acquisition and upload successfully. Advantages of VESPA are (1) fast turnaround mainly driven by the facility's capability of providing the requested EPID images, (2) the possibility for facilities performing the audit in parallel, as there is no need to wait for a phantom, (3) simple and efficient credentialing for international facilities, (4) a large set of data points, and (5) a reduced impact on resources and environment as there is no need to transport heavy phantoms or audit staff. Limitations of the current implementation of VESPA for trials credentialing are that it does not provide absolute dosimetry, therefore a Level I audit is still required, and that it relies on correctly delivered open calibration fields, which are used for system calibration. The implemented EPID based IMRT and VMAT audit system promises to dramatically improve credentialing efficiency for clinical trials and wider applications.

Evaluation of the TrueBeam machine performance check (MPC) beam constancy checks for flattened and flattening filter-free (FFF) photon beams

Machine Performance Check (MPC) is an automated and integrated image‐based tool for verification of beam and geometric performance of the TrueBeam linac. The aims of the study were to evaluate the MPC beam performance tests against current daily quality assurance (QA) methods, to compare MPC performance against more accurate monthly QA tests and to test the sensitivity of MPC to changes in beam performance. The MPC beam constancy checks test the beam output, uniformity, and beam center against the user defined baseline. MPC was run daily over a period of 5 months (n = 115) in parallel with the Daily QA3 device. Additionally, IC Profiler, in‐house EPID tests, and ion chamber measurements were performed biweekly and results presented in a form directly comparable to MPC. The sensitivity of MPC was investigated using controlled adjustments of output, beam angle, and beam position steering. Over the period, MPC output agreed with ion chamber to within 0.6%. For an output adjustment of 1.2%, MPC was found to agree with ion chamber to within 0.17%. MPC beam center was found to agree with the in‐house EPID method within 0.1 mm. A focal spot position adjustment of 0.4 mm (at isocenter) was measured with MPC beam center to within 0.01 mm. An average systematic offset of 0.5% was measured in the MPC uniformity and agreement of MPC uniformity with symmetry measurements was found to be within 0.9% for all beams. MPC uniformity detected a change in beam symmetry of 1.5% to within 0.3% and 0.9% of IC Profiler for flattened and FFF beams, respectively.

Automatic detection of MLC relative position errors for VMAT using the EPID-based picket fence test

Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) ensure the accurate delivery of treatments requiring complex beam fluences like intensity modulated radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy. The purpose of this work is to automate the detection of MLC relative position errors  ⩾0.5 mm using electronic portal imaging device-based picket fence tests and compare the results to the qualitative assessment currently in use. Picket fence tests with and without intentional MLC errors were measured weekly on three Varian linacs. The picket fence images analysed covered a time period ranging between 14-20 months depending on the linac. An algorithm was developed that calculated the MLC error for each leaf-pair present in the picket fence images. The baseline error distributions of each linac were characterised for an initial period of 6 months and compared with the intentional MLC errors using statistical metrics. The distributions of median and one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test p-value exhibited no overlap between baseline and intentional errors and were used retrospectively to automatically detect MLC errors in routine clinical practice. Agreement was found between the MLC errors detected by the automatic method and the fault reports during clinical use, as well as interventions for MLC repair and calibration. In conclusion the method presented provides for full automation of MLC quality assurance, based on individual linac performance characteristics. The use of the automatic method has been shown to provide early warning for MLC errors that resulted in clinical downtime.

Quantifying the performance of in vivo portal dosimetry in detecting four types of treatment parameter variations

PURPOSE

To quantify the ability of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) dosimetry used during treatment (in vivo) in detecting variations that can occur in the course of patient treatment.

METHODS

Images of transmitted radiation from in vivo EPID measurements were converted to a 2D planar dose at isocenter and compared to the treatment planning dose using a prototype software system. Using the treatment planning system (TPS), four different types of variability were modeled: overall dose scaling, shifting the positions of the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves, shifting of the patient position, and changes in the patient body contour. The gamma pass rate was calculated for the modified and unmodified plans and used to construct a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the detectability of the different parameter variations. The detectability is given by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). The TPS was also used to calculate the impact of the variations on the target dose-volume histogram.

RESULTS

Nine intensity modulation radiation therapy plans were measured for four different anatomical sites consisting of 70 separate fields. Results show that in vivo EPID dosimetry was most sensitive to variations in the machine output, AUC = 0.70 - 0.94, changes in patient body habitus, AUC = 0.67 - 0.88, and systematic shifts in the MLC bank positions, AUC = 0.59 - 0.82. These deviations are expected to have a relatively small clinical impact [planning target volume (PTV) D99 change <7%]. Larger variations have even higher detectability. Displacements in the patient's position and random variations in MLC leaf positions were not readily detectable, AUC < 0.64. The D99 of the PTV changed by up to 57% for the patient position shifts considered here.

CONCLUSIONS

In vivo EPID dosimetry is able to detect relatively small variations in overall dose, systematic shifts of the MLC's, and changes in the patient habitus. Shifts in the patient's position which can introduce large changes in the target dose coverage were not readily detected.

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.

Development of an iterative reconstruction method to overcome 2D detector low resolution limitations in MLC leaf position error detection for 3D dose verification in IMRT

The objective of this study was to introduce a new iterative method to reconstruct multi leaf collimator (MLC) positions based on low resolution ionization detector array measurements and to evaluate its error detection performance. The iterative reconstruction method consists of a fluence model, a detector model and an optimizer. Expected detector response was calculated using a radiotherapy treatment plan in combination with the fluence model and detector model. MLC leaf positions were reconstructed by minimizing differences between expected and measured detector response. The iterative reconstruction method was evaluated for an Elekta SLi with 10.0 mm MLC leafs in combination with the COMPASS system and the MatriXX Evolution (IBA Dosimetry) detector with a spacing of 7.62 mm. The detector was positioned in such a way that each leaf pair of the MLC was aligned with one row of ionization chambers. Known leaf displacements were introduced in various field geometries ranging from  -10.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Error detection performance was tested for MLC leaf position dependency relative to the detector position, gantry angle dependency, monitor unit dependency, and for ten clinical intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment beams. For one clinical head and neck IMRT treatment beam, influence of the iterative reconstruction method on existing 3D dose reconstruction artifacts was evaluated. The described iterative reconstruction method was capable of individual MLC leaf position reconstruction with millimeter accuracy, independent of the relative detector position within the range of clinically applied MU's for IMRT. Dose reconstruction artifacts in a clinical IMRT treatment beam were considerably reduced as compared to the current dose verification procedure. The iterative reconstruction method allows high accuracy 3D dose verification by including actual MLC leaf positions reconstructed from low resolution 2D measurements.

VMAT linear accelerator commissioning and quality assurance: dose control and gantry speed tests

In VMAT treatment delivery the ability of the linear accelerator (linac) to accurately control dose versus gantry angle is critical to delivering the plan correctly. A new VMAT test delivery was developed to specifically test the dose versus gantry angle with the full range of allowed gantry speeds and dose rates. The gantry‐mounted IBA MatriXX with attached inclinometer was used in movie mode to measure the instantaneous relative dose versus gantry angle during the plan every 0.54 s. The results were compared to the expected relative dose at each gantry angle calculated from the plan. The same dataset was also used to compare the instantaneous gantry speeds throughout the delivery compared to the expected gantry speeds from the plan. Measurements performed across four linacs generally show agreement between measurement and plan to within 1.5% in the constant dose rate regions and dose rate modulation within 0.1 s of the plan. Instantaneous gantry speed was measured to be within 0.11∘/s of the plan (1 SD). An error in one linac was detected in that the nominal gantry speed was incorrectly calibrated. This test provides a practical method to quality‐assure critical aspects of VMAT delivery including dose versus gantry angle and gantry speed control. The method can be performed with any detector that can acquire time‐resolved dosimetric information that can be synchronized with a measurement of gantry angle. The test fulfils several of the aims of the recent Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry (NCS) Report 24, which provides recommendations for comprehensive VMAT quality assurance.

PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr

Quality control of VMAT synchronization using portal imaging

For accurate delivery of volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the gantry position should be synchronized with the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions and the dose rate. This study, therefore, aims to implement quality control (QC) of VMAT synchronization, with as few arcs as possible and with minimal data handling time, using portal imaging. A steel bar of diameter 12 mm is accurately positioned in the G-T direction, 80 mm laterally from the isocenter. An arc prescription irradiates the bar with a 16 mm × 220 mm field during a complete 360° arc, so as to cast a shadow of the bar onto the portal imager. This results in a sinusoidal sweep of the field and shadow across the portal imager and back. The method is evaluated by simulating gantry position errors of 1°-9° at one control point, dose errors of 2 monitor units to 20 monitor units (MU) at one control point (0.3%-3% overall), and MLC leaf position errors of 1 mm - 6 mm at one control point. Inhomogeneity metrics are defined to characterize the synchronization of all leaves and of individual leaves with respect to the complete set. Typical behavior is also investigated for three models of accelerator. In the absence of simulated errors, the integrated images show uniformity, and with simulated delivery errors, irregular patterns appear. The inhomogeneity metrics increase by 67% due to a 4° gantry position error, 33% due to an 8 MU (1.25%) dose error, and 70% due to a 2 mm MLC leaf position error. The method is more sensitive to errors at gantry angle 90°/270° than at 0°/180° due to the geometry of the test. This method provides fast and effective VMAT QC suitable for inclusion in a monthly accelerator QC program. The test is able to detect errors in the delivery of individual control points, with the possibility of using movie images to further investigate suspicious image features.

Sensitivity of volumetric modulated arc therapy patient specific QA results to multileaf collimator errors and correlation to dose volume histogram based metrics

PURPOSE

This study investigates the impact of systematic multileaf collimator (MLC) positional errors on gamma analysis results used for quality assurance (QA) of Rapidarc treatments. In addition, this study evaluates the relationship of these gamma analysis results and clinical dose volume histogram metrics (DVH) for Rapidarc treatment plans.

METHODS

Five prostate plans were modified by the introduction of systematic MLC errors. The MLC shifts to each individual active leaf introduced were 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1 mm. All QA verification plans were delivered and estimated 3D patient dose or high density phantom dose were obtained based on the ArcCHECK measurement files. QA gamma analysis of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm were implemented and relationships to dose differences in DVH metrics encountered due to MLC errors were determined. Tolerances of 3% and 5% for DVH metric were implemented to determine the sensitivity of gamma analysis to MLC errors. A calculation of sensitivity was determined from the number of incidences of false negative and false positive cases in gamma analysis results.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of global gamma analysis for criteria of 3%/3 mm was 0.78 and for 2%/2 mm was 0.82. A number of instances occurred for an acceptable VMAT QA gamma index which did not indicate a DVH metric dose error greater than 5%. The correlation between global gamma analysis using criteria 3%/3 mm and DVH metric dose error were all <0.8 indicating less than a strong correlation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a greater sensitivity for detection of dosimetric errors occurring in a Rapidarc plan using gamma criteria of 2%/2 mm than 3%/3 mm. However, there is lack of consistently strong correlation between global gamma indexes and clinical DVH metrics for PTV and bladder and rectum for Rapidarc plans. It is recommended that the sole use of gamma index for Rapidarc QA plan evaluation could be insufficient and a methodology for evaluation of delivered dose to patient is required.

Monitoring daily MLC positional errors using trajectory log files and EPID measurements for IMRT and VMAT deliveries

This work investigated the differences between multileaf collimator (MLC) positioning accuracy determined using either log files or electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) and then assessed the possibility of reducing patient specific quality control (QC) via phantom-less methodologies. In-house software was developed, and validated, to track MLC positional accuracy with the rotational and static gantry picket fence tests using an integrated electronic portal image. This software was used to monitor MLC daily performance over a 1 year period for two Varian TrueBeam linear accelerators, with the results directly compared with MLC positions determined using leaf trajectory log files. This software was validated by introducing known shifts and collimator errors. Skewness of the MLCs was found to be 0.03 ± 0.06° (mean ±1 standard deviation (SD)) and was dependent on whether the collimator was rotated manually or automatically. Trajectory log files, analysed using in-house software, showed average MLC positioning errors with a magnitude of 0.004 ± 0.003 mm (rotational) and 0.004 ± 0.011 mm (static) across two TrueBeam units over 1 year (mean ±1 SD). These ranges, as indicated by the SD, were lower than the related average MLC positioning errors of 0.000 ± 0.025 mm (rotational) and 0.000 ± 0.039 mm (static) that were obtained using the in-house EPID based software. The range of EPID measured MLC positional errors was larger due to the inherent uncertainties of the procedure. Over the duration of the study, multiple MLC positional errors were detected using the EPID based software but these same errors were not detected using the trajectory log files. This work shows the importance of increasing linac specific QC when phantom-less methodologies, such as the use of log files, are used to reduce patient specific QC. Tolerances of 0.25 mm have been created for the MLC positional errors using the EPID-based automated picket fence test. The software allows diagnosis of any specific leaf that needs repair and gives an indication as to the course of action that is required.

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.

A comparison of the gamma index analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems

PURPOSE

To investigate the variability of the global gamma index (γ) analysis in various commercial IMRT/VMAT QA systems and to assess the impact of measurement with low resolution detector arrays on γ.

MATERIALS

Five commercial QA systems (PTW 2D-Array, Scandidos Delta4, SunNuclear ArcCHECK, Varian EPID, and Gafchromic EBT2 film) were investigated. The response of γ analysis to deliberately introduced errors in pelvis and head & neck IMRT and RapidArc™ plans was evaluated in each system. A theoretical γ was calculated in each commercial QA system software (PTW Verisoft, Delta4 software, SNC Patient, Varian Portal Dosimetry and IBA OmniPro, respectively), using treatment planning system resolution virtual measurements and compared to an independent calculation. Error-induced plans were measured on a linear accelerator and were evaluated against the error-free dose distribution calculated using Varian Eclipse™ in the relevant phantom CT scan. In all cases, global γ was used with a 20% threshold relative to a point selected in a high dose and low gradient region. The γ based on measurement was compared against the theoretical to evaluate the response of each system.

RESULTS

There was statistically good agreement between the predicted γ based on the virtual measurements from each software (concordance correlation coefficient, ρc>0.92) relative to the independent prediction in all cases. For the actual measured data, the agreement with the predicted γ reduces with tightening passing criteria and the variability between the different systems increases. This indicates that the detector array configuration and resolution have greater impact on the experimental calculation of γ due to under-sampling of the dose distribution, blurring effects, noise, or a combination.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to understand the response and limitations of the gamma index analysis combined with the equipment in use. For the same pass-rate criteria, different devices and software combinations exhibit varying levels of agreement with the predicted γ analysis.

Quality assurance of electron beams using a Varian electronic portal imaging device

The feasibility of utilizing an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for the quality assurance of electron beams was investigated. This work was conducted on a Varian 2100iX machine equipped with an amorphous silicon (aS1000) portal imager. The linearity of the imager pixel response as a function of exposed dose was first confirmed. The short-term reproducibility of the EPID response to electron beams was verified. Low (6 MeV), medium (12 MeV) and high (20 MeV) energies were tested, each along with small (6 × 6 cm(2)), medium (10 × 10 cm(2)) and large (20 × 20 cm(2)) applicators. Acquired EPID images were analyzed using an in-house MATLAB code for radiation field size, penumbra, symmetry and flatness. Field sizes and penumbra values agreed with those from film dosimetry to within 1 mm. Field symmetry and flatness constancies were measured over a period of three weeks. The results indicate that EPID can be used for routine quality assurance of electron beams.