Literature DB >> 11213924

Leaf position error during conformal dynamic arc and intensity modulated arc treatments.

C R Ramsey1, K M Spencer, R Alhakeem, A L Oliver.   

Abstract

Conformal dynamic arc (CD-ARC) and intensity modulated arc treatments (IMAT) are both treatment modalities where the multileaf collimator (MLC) can change leaf position dynamically during gantry rotation. These treatment techniques can be used to generate complex isodose distributions, similar to those used in fix-gantry intensity modulation. However, a beam-hold delay cannot be used during CD-ARC or IMAT treatments to reduce spatial error. Consequently, a certain amount of leaf position error will have to be accepted in order to make the treatment deliverable. Measurements of leaf position accuracy were taken with leaf velocities ranging from 0.3 to 3.0 cm/s. The average and maximum leaf position errors were measured, and a least-squares linear regression analysis was performed on the measured data to determine the MLC velocity error coefficient. The average position errors range from 0.03 to 0.21 cm, with the largest deviations occurring at the maximum achievable leaf velocity (3.0 cm/s). The measured MLC velocity error coefficient was 0.0674 s for a collimator rotation of 0 degrees and 0.0681 s for a collimator rotation of 90 degrees. The distribution in leaf position error between the 0 degrees and 90 degrees collimator rotations was within statistical uncertainty. A simple formula was developed based on these results for estimating the velocity-dependent dosimetric error. Using this technique, a dosimetric error index for plan evaluation can be calculated from the treatment time and the dynamic MLC leaf controller file.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11213924     DOI: 10.1118/1.1333410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  11 in total

1.  Quality assurance of dynamic parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  A Manikandan; B Sarkar; R Holla; T R Vivek; N Sujatha
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Incorporation of gantry angle correction for 3D dose prediction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Iori Sumida; Hajime Yamaguchi; Hisao Kizaki; Keiko Aboshi; Mari Tsujii; Yuji Yamada; Masashi Yagi; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 2.724

3.  Analysis of RapidArc optimization strategies using objective function values and dose-volume histograms.

Authors:  Michael Oliver; Isabelle Gagne; Carmen Popescu; Will Ansbacher; Wayne A Beckham
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  Performance evaluation of respiratory motion-synchronized dynamic IMRT delivery.

Authors:  S A Yoganathan; K J Maria Das; Arpita Agarwal; Shaleen Kumar
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Impact of MLC properties and IMRT technique in meningioma and head-and-neck treatments.

Authors:  Steffi Kantz; Matthias Söhn; Almut Troeller; Michael Reiner; Helmut Weingandt; Markus Alber; Claus Belka; Ute Ganswindt
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.481

6.  A treatment planning study comparing Elekta VMAT and fixed field IMRT using the varian treatment planning system eclipse.

Authors:  Samuel Peters; Hans Schiefer; Ludwig Plasswilm
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.481

7.  Detector system dose verification comparisons for arc therapy: couch vs. gantry mount.

Authors:  Arjunan Manikandan; Biplab Sarkar; Maitreyee Nandy; Chandra Sekaran Sureka; Michael S Gossman; Nadendla Sujatha; Vivek Thirupathur Rajendran
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Dosimetric, mechanical, and geometric verification of conformal dynamic arc treatment.

Authors:  T Malatesta; V Landoni; S delle Canne; A Bufacchi; L Marmiroli; O Caspiani; A Bonanni; F Tortoreto; M V Leone; R Capparella; R Fragomeni; L Begnozzi
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Correlation of phantom-based and log file patient-specific QA with complexity scores for VMAT.

Authors:  Christina E Agnew; Denise M Irvine; Conor K McGarry
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Quality assurance devices for dynamic conformal radiotherapy.

Authors:  Victy Y M Wong
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.