Literature DB >> 18449158

Determination of depth and field size dependence of multileaf collimator transmission in intensity-modulated radiation therapy beams.

Piotr Zygmanski1, Florin Rosca1, Dnyanesh Kadam1, Friedlieb Lorenz1, Adrian Nalichowski1, Laurence Court1, Lee Chin1.   

Abstract

Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans for the treatment of large and complex volumes may contain a relatively large contribution from multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission. In such cases, comprehensive characterization of direct and scatter MLC transmission is important. We designed a set of tests (open beam, closed static MLC, and dynamic MLC gap) to determine dosimetric MLC properties as a function of field size and depth at the central axis. We developed a generalized model of MLC transmission to account for direct MLC transmission, MLC scatter, beam hardening, and leaf-end transmission (dosimetric gap). The model is consistent with the beam model used in IMRT optimization. We tested the model for extreme asymmetric fields relevant for large targets and for split IMRT fields. We applied our MLC scatter estimation formula to clinically relevant cases and showed that MLC scatter is contributing an undesired background dose. This contribution is relatively large, especially in low-dose regions. (For instance, a uniform extra dose may dramatically increase normallung toxicity in thorax treatment.) For complex IMRT of large-volume targets, we found direct MLC transmission dose to be as high as 30%, and MLC scatter, up to 10% within the target volume for the selected cases. We identified that the dose discrepancies between the IMRT planning system [Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA)] and ionization chamber measurements (inside and outside of the field) are attributable to an inadequate model of MLC transmission in the planning system (constant-value model). In the present study, we measured MLC transmission properties for Varian 6EX (6 MV) and 21EXs (6 and 10 MV) linear accelerators; however, the experimental method and theoretical model are more general.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18449158     DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v8i4.2693

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys        ISSN: 1526-9914            Impact factor:   2.102


  7 in total

1.  Eight years of IMRT quality assurance with ionization chambers and film dosimetry: experience of the Montpellier Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Authors:  Pascal Fenoglietto; Benoit Laliberté; Norbert Aillères; Olivier Riou; Jean-Bernard Dubois; David Azria
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 3.481

2.  The dosimetric impact of control point spacing for sliding gap MLC fields.

Authors:  Benjamin J Zwan; Jonathan Hindmarsh; Erin Seymour; Kankean Kandasamy; Kirbie Sloan; Rajesakar David; Christopher Lee
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  A study on the correlation between radiation field size and gamma index passing rate for MatriXX.

Authors:  Kai Xie; Hongfei Sun; Liugang Gao; Jianfeng Sui; Tao Lin; Xinye Ni
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Identification of a potential source of error for 6FFF beams delivered on an AgilityTM multileaf collimator.

Authors:  Friedlieb H Lorenz; Matthew I Paris
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Static MLC transmission simulation using two-dimensional ray tracing.

Authors:  David P Adam; Bryan P Bednarz; Sean P Frigo
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 2.243

6.  Determination of dosimetric leaf gap using amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device and its influence on intensity modulated radiotherapy dose delivery.

Authors:  S Timothy Peace Balasingh; I Rabi Raja Singh; K Mohamathu Rafic; S Ebenezer Suman Babu; B Paul Ravindran
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep

7.  Angular dose dependence of Matrixx TM and its calibration.

Authors:  Luciant D Wolfsberger; Matthew Wagar; Paige Nitsch; Mandar S Bhagwat; Piotr Zygmanski
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 2.102

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.