Abstract

Unlike other commercial treatment planning systems (TPS) which model the rounded leaf end differently (such as the MLC dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) or rounded leaf‐tip radius), the RayStation TPS (RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden) models transmission through the rounded leaf end of the MLC with a step function, in which the radiation transmission through the leaf end is the square root of the average MLC transmission factor. We report on the optimization of MLC model parameters for the RayStation planning system. This (TPS) models the rounded leaf end of the MLC with the following parameters: leaf‐tip offset, leaf‐tip width, average transmission factor, and tongue and groove. We optimized the MLC model parameters for IMRT in the RayStation v. 4.0 planning system and for a Varian C‐series linac with a 120‐leaf Millennium MLC, and validated the model using measured data. The leaf‐tip offset is the geometric offset due to the rounded leaf‐end design and resulting divergence of the light/radiation field. The offset value is a function of the leaf‐tip position, and tabulated data are available from the vendor. The leaf‐tip width was iteratively evaluated by comparing computed and measured transverse dose profiles of MLC defined fields at dmax in water. In‐water profile comparisons were also used to verify the MLC leaf position (leaf‐tip offset). The average transmission factor and leaf tongue‐and‐groove width were derived iteratively by maximizing the agreement between measurements and RayStation TPS calculations for five clinical IMRT QA plans. Plan verifications were performed by comparing MapCHECK2 measurements and Monte Carlo calculations. The MLC model was validated using five test IMRT cases from the AAPM Task Group 119 report. Absolute gamma analyses (3 mm/3% and 2 mm/2%) were applied. In addition, computed output factors for MLC‐defined small fields (2×2,3×3,4×4,6×6 cm2) of both 6 MV and 18 MV photons were compared to those independently measured by the Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC), Houston, TX. 6 MV and 18 MV models were both determined to have the same MLC parameters: leaf‐tip offset=0.3 cm,2.5% transmission, and leaf tongue‐and‐groove width=0.05 cm. IMRT QA analysis for five test cases in TG‐119 resulted in a 100% passing rate with 3 mm/3% gamma analysis for 6 MV, and >97.5% for 18 MV. The passing rate was >94.6% for 6 MV and >90.9% for 18 MV when the 2 mm/2% gamma analysis criteria was applied. These results compared favorably with those published in AAPM Task Group 119. The reported MLC model parameters serve as a reference for other users.PACS number(s): 87.55.D, 87.56.nk

Highlights

  • During the last two decades, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely used treatment modality in radiation oncology

  • Molineu et al[1] analyzed 1139 results of the Radiological Physics Center’s (RPC) anthropomorphic head and neck IMRT phantom irradiations performed by 763 institutions undergoing clinical trial credentialing from 2001 to 2011, and found that only 81.6% of irradiations passed the gamma analysis criteria of 7%/4 mm when the treatment plan and treatment delivery were compared

  • While the results are similar with multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission factors of 2.5 and 3.0, we chose a value of 2.5 because it is closer to that reported in previous publications.[2,10] Of note, the gamma analysis results were not as sensitive to the tongue-and-groove width as expected

Read more

Summary

Introduction

During the last two decades, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has become a widely used treatment modality in radiation oncology. In IMRT, each treatment field consists of multiple segments, or beamlets, shaped with the computer-controlled multileaf collimator (MLC) This delivery technique with multiple segments makes it possible to deliver highly conformal doses to the target. The delivery of radiation via many small beamlets makes it challenging to accurately calculate dose in the treatment planning system (TPS). This challenge arises due to the difficulty in modeling the MLC in the TPS. Cadman et al[3] investigated the effects of transmission through MLC rounded leaf ends in the TPS for step-and-shoot IMRT plans, and reported that the calculated dose was underestimated by up to 12% without appropriate consideration of leaf-end transmission. Lee et al[4] studied the effects of different static dosimetric leaf gaps (a method to model the MLC rounded leaf end) for intensity-modulated radiosurgery and reported that large dose differences (up to 12.7%) were associated with different leaf gaps (i.e., different MLC model parameters)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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