Collimator Positional Accuracy Research Articles

Commissioning of a 1.5T Elekta Unity MR-linac: A single institution experience.

MR image‐guided radiotherapy has the potential to improve patient care, but integration of an MRI scanner with a linear accelerator adds complexity to the commissioning process. This work describes a single institution experience of commissioning an Elekta Unity MR‐linac, including mechanical testing, MRI scanner commissioning, and dosimetric validation. Mechanical testing included multileaf collimator (MLC) positional accuracy, measurement of radiation isocenter diameter, and MR‐to‐MV coincidence. Key MRI tests included magnetic field homogeneity, geometric accuracy, image quality, and the accuracy of navigator‐triggered imaging for motion management. Dosimetric validation consisted of comparison between measured and calculated PDDs and profiles, IMRT measurements, and end‐to‐end testing. Multileaf collimator positional accuracy was within 1.0 mm, the measured radiation isocenter walkout was 0.20 mm, and the coincidence between MR and MV isocenter was 1.06 mm, which is accounted for in the treatment planning system (TPS). For a 350‐mm‐diameter spherical volume, the peak‐to‐peak deviation of the magnetic field homogeneity was 4.44 ppm and the geometric distortion was 0.8 mm. All image quality metrics were within ACR recommendations. Navigator‐triggered images showed a maximum deviation of 0.42, 0.75, and 3.0 mm in the target centroid location compared to the stationary target for a 20 mm motion at 10, 15, and 20 breaths per minute, respectively. TPS‐calculated PDDs and profiles showed excellent agreement with measurement. The gamma passing rate for IMRT plans was 98.4 ± 1.1% (3%/ 2 mm) and end‐to‐end testing of adapted plans showed agreement within 0.4% between ion‐chamber measurement and TPS calculation. All credentialing criteria were satisfied in an independent end‐to‐end test using an IROC MRgRT phantom.

Assessment of Multi-leaf Collimator Positional Accuracy Using Radiochromic EBT3 Film and an Electronic Portal Imaging Device

This study aimed to evaluate multi-leaf collimator (MLC) positional accuracy by using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and radiochromic EBT3 film. Furthermore, the MLC’s positional accuracy at different gantry and collimator angles of a Siemens ONCOR linear accelerator (linac) was evaluated. A picket fence test was performed to evaluate the MLC’s positional accuracy at various gantry and collimator angles of the linac. The EPID and the EBT3 films were sequentially irradiated seven times at 2-cm intervals by making a rectangular field (0.3 × 19 cm2). The full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of each band (field) was calculated for all leaves by using inhouse software. Then, variations between the actual and the planned leaf locations were obtained by using the EPID and the EBT3 film at various gantry and collimator angles. The mean FWHM, acquired using the EPID and the EBT3 film ranged from 2.331 - 3.647 mm and 2.059 - 4.001 mm, respectively. Variations between the actual and the planned leaf locations were found to be affected by changes in the collimator and the gantry angles. Moreover, a -0.060 - 1.588 mm difference we seen between the result obtained from the EBT3 film and that obtained from the EPID. The mean FWHM, at most angles, for the EBT3 film was larger than that for the EPID. The findings showed average deviations for the EPID (0.001 - 0.669 mm) and EBT3 film (0.007 - 1.001 mm); these values agreed within the tolerance level (±1 mm). Furthermore, good agreement was found between the results obtained from the EPID and the EBT3 film; these two dosimetric methods can be used interchangeably, but each must be chosen considering its advantages and disadvantages.

Evaluation of application of EPID for rapid QC testing of linear accelerator.

Evaluation of application of EPID for rapid QC testing of linear accelerator. Quality control of a linear accelerator device is a time and energy intensive process. In this study, attempts have been made to perform the linear accelerator quality control using electronic portal imaging device (EPID), which is mounted on most accelerators. First, quality control and dosimetry parameters of the device were determined and measured based on standard protocols to ensure full calibration of the accelerator. Then, various features of EPID including spatial resolution and contrast resolution, the effect of buildup region, dose response and image uniformity were evaluated. In the next step, consistent with the parameters of linear accelerator quality control including field size, field flatness and symmetry, the light field coincidence with X-ray field, mechanical stability and multileaf collimator position accuracy test, the output images of device were obtained.After feeding images to the MATLAB software, their pixel content was analyzed. All measurements of the three photon beams were repeated three times. The EPID image had a desirable resolution, contrast and uniformity and displayed high sensitivity to dose changes with linear dose response. Seven qualitative parameters of the linear accelerator were then controlled by EPID. The results of the linear accelerator quality control using the EPID were consistent with practice. Quality control using the EPID was more convenient and faster than conventional methods.

Multileaf Collimator Position Accuracy of Respiratory Gated VMAT

Respiratory gated VMAT (volumetric modulated arc therapy) repeats rapid stop and go operations of a MLC (multileaf collimator) by turning the beam on and off by respiratory gating. The rapid stop and go operations of the MLC during respiratory gated irradiation may induce position error of the MLC and may affect output error and dose distribution. The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between the MLC position accuracy of the respiratory gated VMAT and the VMAT parameters. In the method, 1 arc, 2 arcs, and 4 arcs plan were created for the virtual target and irradiation was performed without the gated respiration and with the gated respiration. The respiratory gated system used a RPM (real-time position management system). The MLC position error, gap size error, and the MLC leaf speed were calculated from a log-file. In the histogram of the gap size error, the frequency of falling within the error range up to 0.2 mm was about 12 percentage points higher for the gated respiration. The MLC position error increased with increasing the MLC leaf speed. The correlation coefficient between the MLC leaf speed and the MLC position error exceeded 0.96, showing a strong correlation. Dose rate of VMAT parameters decreased with increasing arc number with the gated respiration and without the gated respiration. Gated irradiation was temporarily stopped, and it decreased by about 27% with respect to the dose rate without the gated respiration. The gantry rotation speed repeated the stop and re-rotation operations when gated irradiation was performed. For all arcs, the rotation speed decreased by about 30% compared with the rotation speed without the gated respiration. The pass rate of gamma analysis for each arc plan was about 95%. No effect on gated irradiation dose distribution was observed. Respiratory gated irradiation reduced dose rate change and gantry rotation speed of the VMAT. Reduction of the MLC leaf speed occurred, and the MLC position error and gap size error decreased. The MLC positional accuracy was secured, and it was confirmed that there was no effect on dose distribution by the respiratory gated VMAT.

Exit fluence analysis using portal dosimetry in volumetric modulated arc therapy

AimIn measuring exit fluences, there are several sources of deviations which include the changes in the entrance fluence, changes in the detector response and patient orientation or geometry. The purpose of this work is to quantify these sources of errors. BackgroundThe use of the volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment with the help of image guidance in radiotherapy results in high accuracy of delivering complex dose distributions while sparing critical organs. The transit dosimetry has the potential of Verifying dose delivery by the linac, Multileaf collimator positional accuracy and the calculation of dose to a patient or phantom. Materials and methodsThe quantification of errors caused by a machine delivery is done by comparing static and arc picket fence test for 30 days. A RapidArc plan, created for the pelvis site was delivered without and with Rando phantom and exit portal images were acquired. The day to day dose variation were analysed by comparing the daily exit dose images during the course of treatment. The gamma criterion used for analysis is 3% dose difference and 3mm distance to agreement with a threshold of 10% of maximum dose. ResultsThe maximum standard deviation for the static and arc picket fence test fields were 0.19CU and 1.3CU, respectively. The delivery of the RapidArc plans without a phantom shows the maximum standard deviation of 1.85CU and the maximum gamma value of 0.59. The maximum gamma value for the RapidArc plan delivered with the phantom was found to be 1.2. The largest observed fluence deviation during the delivery to patient was 5.7% and the maximum standard deviation was 4.1CU. ConclusionIt is found from this study that the variation due to patient anatomy and interfraction organ motion is significant.

SU‐FF‐T‐449: Verification of Multi‐Leaf Collimator Position Accuracy Using a Commercial EPID and Vendor Supplied Portal Dosimetry Software

Purpose: To develop and implement an efficient QA routine capable of verifying multi‐leaf collimator position accuracy using a commercial EPID and vendor supplied portal dosimetry software. With proper implementation, this routine will provide a rapid technique for detecting minor leaf position misalignments which could result in significant deviation from planned dose distributions for Dynamic delivered IMRT. Method and Materials: A common dynamic MLC leaf position verification test, the Picket Fence, was utilized. This test consists of a series of five continuous 1.0 mm strips, with a separation of 2.0 cm between strips, delivered in dynamic mode. Testing was performed on a Varian EPID aS500 (0.78mm pixel resolution) at 100 cm SSD. A baseline integrated image of the picket fence MLC file was captured. A second picket fence MLC file, with intentional single leaf discrepancies of ±0.2, ±0.3, and ±0.5 mm, was also imaged. Integrated EPID images were first visually inspected for deviations in absolute leaf position and then analyzed with the Varian portal dosimetry software. Within the software, a profile was taken to determine peak intensity between strips, which should have a 2.0 cm separation. Additionally, the profile tool was used to determine peak intensity changes along the length of the 1.0mm strips. These peak intensity changes along the strips can be correlated to leaf positioning errors. Results: All single leaf deviations greater than ±0.3mm were visually recognized and profile analysis confirms that leaf errors of this magnitude produce approximately a 10% change in peak intensity along the 1.0mm strips. Profile analysis did not detect the ±0.2mm error. Conclusion: As noted in relevant literature, leaf position accuracy is of paramount importance for dynamic MLC IMRT delivery. Once a baseline image is validated, these tests can be conducted daily and evaluated in a matter of minutes.