Abstract

Multileaf collimator (MLC) positions should be precisely and independently measured 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 system based on the measured MLC trajectories and the original DICOM plan file. The method relies on extracting MLC positions from EPID images acquired at 8.41 fps 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 1–2 mm 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.PACS number(s): 87.55.Qr

Highlights

  • 349 Zwan et al.: Electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs)-based Multileaf collimator (MLC) quality assurance (QA) for volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) to the gantry angle and dose rate

  • Clinical VMAT test plans The MLC QA method was tested using three prostate and three head and neck clinical VMAT fields plans, which were used as a sample set to demonstrate the accuracy and functionality of the method

  • For each of the six test fields, the MLC positions were extracted from the EPID image frames and compared to the planned positions defined by the VMAT control points

Read more

Summary

Introduction

349 Zwan et al.: EPID-based MLC QA for VMAT to the gantry angle and dose rate (machine output). These three dynamic components (i.e., MLC, gantry angle, and dose rate) must remain synchronized throughout the treatment in order to deliver the intended dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR). Due to this high level of complexity, there is a need for comprehensive and informative quality assurance (QA) techniques.[4,5]. Dose differences as large as 2.8 Gy per mm of positional error were observed over the course of a treatment.[10]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.