Literature DB >> 23039672

Verification of dosimetric accuracy on the TrueBeam STx: rounded leaf effect of the high definition MLC.

Kayla N Kielar1, Ed Mok, Annie Hsu, Lei Wang, Gary Luxton.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) in the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system is determined during commissioning and is used to model the effect of the rounded leaf-end of the multileaf collimator (MLC). This parameter attempts to model the physical difference between the radiation and light field and account for inherent leakage between leaf tips. With the increased use of single fraction high dose treatments requiring larger monitor units comes an enhanced concern in the accuracy of leakage calculations, as it accounts for much of the patient dose. This study serves to verify the dosimetric accuracy of the algorithm used to model the rounded leaf effect for the TrueBeam STx, and describes a methodology for determining best-practice parameter values, given the novel capabilities of the linear accelerator such as flattening filter free (FFF) treatments and a high definition MLC (HDMLC).
METHODS: During commissioning, the nominal MLC position was verified and the DLG parameter was determined using MLC-defined field sizes and moving gap tests, as is common in clinical testing. Treatment plans were created, and the DLG was optimized to achieve less than 1% difference between measured and calculated dose. The DLG value found was tested on treatment plans for all energies (6 MV, 10 MV, 15 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FFF) and modalities (3D conventional, IMRT, conformal arc, VMAT) available on the TrueBeam STx.
RESULTS: The DLG parameter found during the initial MLC testing did not match the leaf gap modeling parameter that provided the most accurate dose delivery in clinical treatment plans. Using the physical leaf gap size as the DLG for the HDMLC can lead to 5% differences in measured and calculated doses.
CONCLUSIONS: Separate optimization of the DLG parameter using end-to-end tests must be performed to ensure dosimetric accuracy in the modeling of the rounded leaf ends for the Eclipse treatment planning system. The difference in leaf gap modeling versus physical leaf gap dimensions is more pronounced in the more recent versions of Eclipse for both the HDMLC and the Millennium MLC. Once properly commissioned and tested using a methodology based on treatment plan verification, Eclipse is able to accurately model radiation dose delivered for SBRT treatments using the TrueBeam STx.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23039672     DOI: 10.1118/1.4752444

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


  28 in total

1.  Monte Carlo Modeling of the Agility MLC for IMRT and VMAT Calculations.

Authors:  Shingo Ohira; Hideki Takegawa; Masayoshi Miyazaki; Masahiko Koizumi; Teruki Teshima
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.155

2.  Validation of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) prior to its implementation in Treatment Planning System (TPS): TrueBeam™ millennium 120 leaf MLC.

Authors:  Ravindra Shende; Ganesh Patel
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-10-21

3.  Evaluation of the Differences Between Measurements in Multiple Institutions and Calculation Modeled by Representative Beam Data in Prostate VMAT Plan.

Authors:  Hironao Goto; Hirokazu Mizuno; Yuichi Akino; Masaru Isono; Yoshihiro Tanaka; Norihisa Masai; Toshijiro Yamamoto; Masahiko Koizumi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

4.  Investigating the dosimetric effects of grid size on dose calculation accuracy using volumetric modulated arc therapy in spine stereotactic radiosurgery.

Authors:  Chin Snyder Karen; Manju Liu; Bo Zhao; Yimei Huang; Wen Ning; Indrin J Chetty; M Salim Siddiqui
Journal:  J Radiosurg SBRT       Date:  2017

5.  Effect of treatment planning system parameters on beam modulation complexity for treatment plans with single-layer multi-leaf collimator and dual-layer stacked multi-leaf collimator.

Authors:  Paulo Quintero; Yongqiang Cheng; David Benoit; Craig Moore; Andrew Beavis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 3.629

6.  Optimizing the MLC model parameters for IMRT in the RayStation treatment planning system.

Authors:  Shifeng Chen; Byong Yong Yi; Xiaocheng Yang; Huijun Xu; Karl L Prado; Warren D D'Souza
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  A management method for the statistical results of patient-specific quality assurance for intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Authors:  Satoshi Nakamura; Hiroyuki Okamoto; Akihisa Wakita; Rei Umezawa; Kana Takahashi; Koji Inaba; Naoya Murakami; Toru Kato; Hiroshi Igaki; Yoshinori Ito; Yoshihisa Abe; Jun Itami
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 2.724

8.  Commissioning of and preliminary experience with a new fully integrated computed tomography linac.

Authors:  Lei Yu; Jun Zhao; Zhen Zhang; Jiazhou Wang; Weigang Hu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-06-20       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Single isocenter SRS using CAVMAT offers improved robustness to commissioning and treatment delivery uncertainty compared to VMAT.

Authors:  Edward T Cullom; Yuqing Xia; Kai-Cheng Chuang; Zachary W Gude; Yana Zlateva; Justus D Adamson; William M Giles
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  IMRT and RapidArc commissioning of a TrueBeam linear accelerator using TG-119 protocol cases.

Authors:  Ning Wen; Bo Zhao; Jinkoo Kim; Karen Chin-Snyder; Maria Bellon; Carri Glide-Hurst; Kenneth Barton; Daiquan Chen; Indrin J Chetty
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.