Multileaf Collimator Leaf Position Errors Research Articles

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 2-14mm 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 11mm. Algorithm tests were performed every 2weeks over 4 months. According to the log files, about 17.628% and 1.060% of the leaves had position errors beyond ±0.1 and ±0.2mm, 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 (5mm), 0.024±0.026 (8mm), and 0.018±0.024 (11mm). 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 0.1mm. This method is simple, effective, robust, quantitative, and can detect a wide range of MLC leaf position errors.

Radiotherapy delivery error detection with electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry.

Radiotherapy delivery error detection with electronic portal imaging device (EPID)-based in vivo dosimetry.

Assessment of the Sun Nuclear ArcCHECK to detect errors in 6MV FFF VMAT delivery of brain SABR using ROC analysis.

Institutions use a range of different detector systems for patient‐specific quality assurance (QA) measurements conducted to assure that the dose delivered by a patient’s radiotherapy treatment plan matches the calculated dose distribution. However, the ability of different detectors to detect errors from different sources is often unreported. This study contains a systematic evaluation of Sun Nuclear’s ArcCHECK in terms of the detectability of potential machine‐related treatment errors. The five investigated sources of error were multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions, gantry angle, collimator angle, jaw positions, and dose output. The study encompassed the clinical treatment plans of 29 brain cancer patients who received stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Six error magnitudes were investigated per source of error. In addition, the Eclipse AAA beam model dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) parameter was varied with four error magnitudes. Error detectability was determined based on the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). Detectability of DLG errors was good or excellent (AUC >0.8) at an error magnitude of at least ±0.4 mm, while MLC leaf position and gantry angle errors reached good or excellent detectability at error magnitudes of at least 1.0 mm and 0.6°, respectively. Ideal thresholds, that is, gamma passing rates, to maximize sensitivity and specificity ranged from 79.1% to 98.7%. The detectability of collimator angle, jaw position, and dose output errors was poor for all investigated error magnitudes, with an AUC between 0.5 and 0.6. The ArcCHECK device’s ability to detect errors from treatment machine‐related sources was evaluated, and ideal gamma passing rate thresholds were determined for each source of error. The ArcCHECK was able to detect errors in DLG value, MLC leaf positions, and gantry angle. The ArcCHECK was unable to detect the studied errors in collimator angle, jaw positions, and dose output.

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.

AimThe 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 methodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionWe 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.

An error detection method for real-time EPID-based treatment delivery quality assurance.

To quantify the error detection power of a new treatment delivery error detection method. The method validates monitor unit (MU) resolved beam apertures using real-time EPID images. The on-board EPID imager was used to measure cine-EPID (~10Hz) images for 27 beams from 15 VMAT/SBRT clinical treatment plans and five nonclinical plans. For each frame acquisition, planned apertures were interpolated from the treatment plan multileaf collimator (MLC) positions expected during the frame acquisition interval. Inaccurate deliveries were identified by monitoring in-aperture missed fluence and out-of-aperture excess fluence beyond a specified buffer. Delivery errors were simulated by perturbing the planned MLC positions before comparison with nonperturbed measured apertures. Systematic 1-5mm MLC leaf shifts were used to train a logistic regression model to determine the error detection threshold. Model accuracy was monitored using tenfold cross-validation. The model's error detection ability was tested with other error modes: plan control point (CP) weight perturbations, collimator rotations, random MLC leaf position errors, EPID imager shift, and stuck MLC leaf. The error detection accuracy was evaluated using the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) and the false positive rate (FPR). Per-beam error thresholds of >1, >5, and >10% errant frames were tested to label per-beam errors. The model also was tested for its ability to distinguish five cases with highly similar plans and compared with gamma analysis. Delivery errors were detected by monitoring intended per-frame images with a 2mm MLC buffer. Frame-by-frame aperture errors were identified with an optimal threshold of 0.3% of the expected aperture area. The per-frame FPR was 0.02%. The MCC was 1.00 (perfect classification) for detection based on 1% of frames for random CP weight shift, 3mm random MLC shifts, 90° and 180° collimator rotations, and an MLC leaf stuck after 10% of the beam delivery. The MCC for 2°, 4°, and 8° collimator rotation were 0.53, 0.76, and 0.96, respectively, for the 1% of beam delivery threshold. The 3mm EPID shift had poor detection, with a minimum MCC of 0.14. The highly similar plans were reliably detected by the aperture check but were not detectable with gamma analysis. The high error detection sensitivity and low FPR makes the aperture check error detection method well suited to pretreatment and during-treatment beam delivery quality assurance (QA). The aperture check detects subtle beam delivery errors, including those resulting from MLC leaf positioning deviations, CP MU shifts, and stuck MLC leaves. Furthermore, the method can distinguish between highly similar treatment plans. Since the aperture check method monitors for the aperture shapes over a given MU interval, it is also sensitive to errors in MU per CP, without requiring dosimetric calibration of the EPID. The aperture check is one part of a Swiss cheese error detection scheme, which provides redundant error testing of multiple error modes, including nonaperture related errors. The rapid error detection, at 1% of a beam's delivery, make the aperture check a potential candidate for QA of on-line adaptive radiotherapy, or other situations in which pretreatment delivery QA is impractical.

Effect of MU-weighted multi-leaf collimator position error on dose distribution of SBRT radiotherapy in peripheral non-small cell lung cancer.

PurposePosition accuracy of the multi‐leaf collimator (MLC) is essential in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). This study is aimed to investigate the dosimetric impacts of the MU‐weighted MLC positioning uncertainties of SBRT for patients with early stage peripheral non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsThree types of MLC position error were simulated: Type 1, random error; Type 2, system shift, in which both MLC banks shifted to the left or right direction; and Type 3, in which both MLC banks moved with same magnitudes in the opposite directions. Two baseline plans were generated: an automatic plan (AP) and a manually optimized plan (MP). Multi‐leaf collimator position errors were introduced to generate simulated plans with the preset MLC leaf position errors, which were then reimported into the Pinnacle system to generate simulated plans, respectively. The dosimetric parameters (CI, nCI, GI, etc.) and gEUD values of PTV and OARs were calculated. Linear regression between MU‐weighted/unweighted MLC position error and gEUD was performed to obtain dose sensitivity.ResultsThe dose sensitivities of the PTVs were −4.93, −38.94, −41.70, −55.55, and 30.33 Gy/mm for random, left shift, right shift, system close, and system open MLC errors, respectively. There were significant differences between the MU‐weighted and the unweighted dose sensitivity, which was −38.94 Gy/mm vs −3.42 Gy/mm (left shift), −41.70 Gy/mm vs −3.56 Gy/mm (right shift), −55.55 Gy/mm vs −4.84 Gy/mm (system close), and 30.33 vs 2.64 Gy/mm (system open). For the system open/close MLC errors, as the PTV volume became larger, the dose sensitivity decreased. APs provided smaller dose sensitivity for the system shift and system close MLC errors compared to the conventional MPs.ConclusionsThere was significant difference in dose sensitivity between MU‐weighted and unweighted MLC position error of SBRT radiotherapy in peripheral NSCLC. MU is suggested to be included in the dosimetric evaluation of the MLC misalignments, since it is much closer to clinical radiotherapy.

Reconstruction of high resolution MLC leaf positions using a low resolution detector for accurate 3D dose reconstruction in IMRT

In pre-treatment dose verification, low resolution detector systems are unable to identify shifts of individual leafs of high resolution multi leaf collimator (MLC) systems from detected changes in the dose deposition. The goal of this study was to introduce an alternative approach (the shutter technique) combined with a previous described iterative reconstruction method to accurately reconstruct high resolution MLC leaf positions based on low resolution measurements. For the shutter technique, two additional radiotherapy treatment plans (RT-plans) were generated in addition to the original RT-plan; one with even MLC leafs closed for reconstructing uneven leaf positions and one with uneven MLC leafs closed for reconstructing even leaf positions. Reconstructed leaf positions were then implemented in the original RT-plan for 3D dose reconstruction. The shutter technique was evaluated for a 6 MV Elekta SLi linac with 5 mm MLC leafs (Agility™) in combination with the MatriXX Evolution detector with detector spacing of 7.62 mm. Dose reconstruction was performed with the COMPASS system (v2.0). The measurement setup allowed one row of ionization chambers to be affected by two adjacent leaf pairs. Measurements were obtained for various field sizes with MLC leaf position errors ranging from 1.0 mm to 10.0 mm. Furthermore, one clinical head and neck IMRT treatment beam with MLC introduced leaf position errors of 5.0 mm was evaluated to illustrate the impact of the shutter technique on 3D dose reconstruction. Without the shutter technique, MLC leaf position reconstruction showed reconstruction errors up to 6.0 mm. Introduction of the shutter technique allowed MLC leaf position reconstruction for the majority of leafs with sub-millimeter accuracy resulting in a reduction of dose reconstruction errors. The shutter technique in combination with the iterative reconstruction method allows high resolution MLC leaf position reconstruction using low resolution measurements with sub-millimeter accuracy.

SU‐F‐T‐549: Validation of a Method for in Vivo 3D Dose Reconstruction for SBRT Using a New Transmission Detector

Purpose:Recently, there has been increased clinical use of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). SBRT treatments will strongly benefit from in vivo patient dose verification, as any errors in delivery can be more detrimental to the radiobiology of the patient as compared to conventional therapy. In vivo dose measurements, a commercially available quality assurance platform which is able to correlate the delivered dose to the patient's anatomy and take into account tissue inhomogeneity, is the COMPASS system (IBA Dosimetry, Germany) using a new transmission detector (Dolphin, IBA Dosimetry). In this work, we evaluate a method for in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT using a new transmission detector, which was developed for in vivo dose verification for intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).Methods:We evaluated the accuracy of measurement for SBRT using simple small fields (2×2−10×10 cm2), a multileaf collimator (MLC) test pattern, and clinical cases. The dose distributions from the COMPASS were compared with those of EDR2 films (Kodak, USA) and the Monte Carlo simulations (MC). For clinical cases, we compared MC using dose‐volume‐histograms (DVHs) and dose profiles.Results:The dose profiles from the COMPASS for small fields and the complicated MLC test pattern agreed with those of EDR2 films, and MC within 3%. This showed the COMPASS with Dolphin system showed good spatial resolution and can measure small fields which are required for SBRT. Those results also suggest that COMPASS with Dolphin is able to detect MLC leaf position errors for SBRT. In clinical cases, the COMPASS with Dolphin agreed well with MC. The Dolphin detector, which consists of ionization chambers, provided stable measurement.Conclusion:COMPASS with Dolphin detector showed a useful in vivo 3D dose reconstruction for SBRT. The accuracy of the results indicates that this approach is suitable for clinical implementation.

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.

Direct Impact Analysis of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Position Error on Dose Error in Off-Axis and Distributions With Flattening Filter Free Beam

Direct Impact Analysis of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Position Error on Dose Error in Off-Axis and Distributions With Flattening Filter Free Beam

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 16mm×220mm 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.PACS numbers: 87.55.Qr, 87.56.bd, 87.56.Fc

SU-E-T-195: Gantry Angle Dependency of MLC Leaf Position Error

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the gantry angle dependency of the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position error. Methods: An automatic MLC quality assurance system (AutoMLCQA) was developed to evaluate the gantry angle dependency of the MLC leaf position error using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID). To eliminate the EPID position error due to gantry rotation, we designed a reference maker (RM) that could be inserted into the wedge mount. After setting up the EPID, a reference image was taken of the RM using an open field. Next, an EPID-based picket-fence test (PFT) was performed without the RM. These procedures were repeated at every 45° intervals of the gantry angle. A total of eight reference images and PFT image sets were analyzed using in-house software. The average MLC leaf position error was calculated at five pickets (-10, -5, 0, 5, and 10 cm) in accordance with general PFT guidelines using in-house software. This test was carried out for four linear accelerators. Results: The average MLC leaf position errors were within the set criterion of <1 mm (actual errors ranged from -0.7 to 0.8 mm) for all gantry angles, but significant gantry angle dependency was observed inmore » all machines. The error was smaller at a gantry angle of 0° but increased toward the positive direction with gantry angle increments in the clockwise direction. The error reached a maximum value at a gantry angle of 90° and then gradually decreased until 180°. In the counter-clockwise rotation of the gantry, the same pattern of error was observed but the error increased in the negative direction. Conclusion: The AutoMLCQA system was useful to evaluate the MLC leaf position error for various gantry angles without the EPID position error. The Gantry angle dependency should be considered during MLC leaf position error analysis.« less

Effect of MLC leaf position, collimator rotation angle, and gantry rotation angle errors on intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf position, collimator rotation angle, and accelerator gantry rotation angle errors on intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. To compare dosimetric differences between the simulating plans and the clinical plans with evaluation parameters, 6 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma were selected for simulation of systematic and random MLC leaf position errors, collimator rotation angle errors, and accelerator gantry rotation angle errors. There was a high sensitivity to dose distribution for systematic MLC leaf position errors in response to field size. When the systematic MLC position errors were 0.5, 1, and 2mm, respectively, the maximum values of the mean dose deviation, observed in parotid glands, were 4.63%, 8.69%, and 18.32%, respectively. The dosimetric effect was comparatively small for systematic MLC shift errors. For random MLC errors up to 2mm and collimator and gantry rotation angle errors up to 0.5°, the dosimetric effect was negligible. We suggest that quality control be regularly conducted for MLC leaves, so as to ensure that systematic MLC leaf position errors are within 0.5mm. Because the dosimetric effect of 0.5° collimator and gantry rotation angle errors is negligible, it can be concluded that setting a proper threshold for allowed errors of collimator and gantry rotation angle may increase treatment efficacy and reduce treatment time.

Direct impact analysis of multi-leaf collimator leaf position errors on dose distributions in volumetric modulated arc therapy: a pass rate calculation between measured planar doses with and without the position errors**This work was presented in part at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology in San Diego on 1 November 2010.

We propose a new method for analyzing the direct impact of multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf position errors on dose distributions in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). The technique makes use of the following processes. Systematic leaf position errors are generated by directly changing a leaf offset in a linac controller; dose distributions are measured by a two-dimensional diode array; pass rates of the dose difference between measured planar doses with and without the position errors are calculated as a function of the leaf position error. Three different treatment planning systems (TPSs) were employed to create VMAT plans for five prostate cancer cases and the pass rates were compared between the TPSs under various leaf position errors. The impact of the leaf position errors on dose distributions depended upon the final optimization result from each TPS, which was explained by the correlation between the dose error and the average leaf gap width. The presented method determines leaf position tolerances for VMAT delivery for each TPS, which may facilitate establishing a VMAT quality assurance program in a radiotherapy facility.

Impact of MLC leaf position errors on simple and complex IMRT plans for head and neck cancer**Presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, 30 July 2006.

The dosimetric impact of random and systematic multi-leaf collimator (MLC) leaf position errors is relatively unknown for head and neck intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) patients. In this report we studied 17 head and neck IMRT patients, including 12 treated with simple plans (<50 segments) and 5 treated with complex plans (>100 segments). Random errors (−2 to +2 mm) and systematic errors (±0.5 mm and ±1 mm) in MLC leaf positions were introduced into the clinical plans and the resultant dose distributions were analyzed based on defined endpoint doses. The dosimetric effect was insignificant for random MLC leaf position errors up to 2 mm for both simple and complex plans. However, for systematic MLC leaf position errors, we found significant dosimetric differences between the simple and complex IMRT plans. For 1 mm systematic error, the average changes in D95% were 4% in simple plans versus 8% in complex plans. The average changes in D0.1 cc of the spinal cord and brain stem were 4% in simple plans versus 12% in complex plans. The average changes in parotid glands were 9% in simple plans versus 13% for the complex plans. Overall, simple IMRT plans are less sensitive to leaf position errors than complex IMRT plans.

Quality assurance of the multileaf collimator with helical tomotherapy: Design and implementation

Quality assurance (QA) of the multileaf collimator (MLC) is a critical step for the delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatment plan. While QA procedures for motor-driven MLC have been published extensively, those for binary MLCs such as the one used for helical tomotherapy have not been presented in the literature, as this is still a fairly new technology. In this study, seven test patterns for the MLC QA of a helical tomotherapy unit have been designed and implemented. The seven test patterns check the MLC alignment, MLC leakage, MLC timing and MLC leaf position error in detail. Those patterns can be easily implemented in any center with a helical tomotherapy unit as part of the routine QA. The QA procedures can be performed using existing QA resources such as solid water phantom and EDR2 film. A software toolkit called "Tomo MLC QA" has been developed to assist in generating the QA procedures and analyzing the results. Our results showed that the helical tomotherapy MLC is very robust, exhibiting interleaf leakage of 0.53% +/-0.09%. Several issues with the MLC have been found and discussed. The QA results also illustrate the utilization and usefulness of the proposed QA procedures.