Improving the modelling of a multi-leaf collimator with tilted leaf sides used in radiotherapy.

Background and purpose: Multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) with tilted leaf sides have a complex transmission behaviour that is not easily matched by radiotherapy treatment planning systems (TPSs). We sought to develop an MLC model that can accurately match test fields and clinically relevant plans at different centres. Materials and methods: Two new MLC models were developed and evaluated within a research version of a commercial TPS. Prototype I used adjusted-constant transmissions and Prototype II used variable transmissions at the tongue-and-groove and leaf-tip regions. Three different centres evaluated these prototypes for a tilted MLC and compared them with their initial MLC model using test fields and patient-specific quality-assurance measurements of clinically relevant plans. For the latter, gamma passing rates (GPR) at 2 %/2mm were recorded. Results: For the prototypes the same set of MLC parameters could be used at all centres, with only a slight adjustment of the offset parameter. For centres A and C, average GPR were >95 % and within 0.5 % GPR difference between the standard, and prototype models. In center B, prototypes I and II improved the agreement in clinically relevant plans, with an increase in GPR of 2.3 % ± 0.8 % and 3.0 ± 0.8 %, respectively. Conclusions: The prototype MLC models were either similar or superior to the initial MLC model, and simpler to configure because fewer trade-offs were required. Prototype I performed comparably to the more sophisticated Prototype II and its configuration can be easily standardized, which can be useful to reduce variability and improve safety in clinical practice.

Universal evaluation of MLC models in treatment planning systems based on a common set of dynamic tests.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of characterising MLCs and MLC models implemented in TPSs using a common set of dynamic beams. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of tests containing synchronous (SG) and asynchronous sweeping gaps (aSG) was distributed among twenty-five participating centres. Doses were measured with a Farmer-type ion chamber and computed in TPSs, which provided a dosimetric characterisation of the leaf tip, tongue-and-groove, and MLC transmission of each MLC, as well as an assessment of the MLC model in each TPS. Five MLC types and four TPSs were evaluated, covering the most frequent combinations used in radiotherapy departments. RESULTS: Measured differences within each MLC type were minimal, while large differences were found between MLC models implemented in clinical TPSs. This resulted in some concerning discrepancies, especially for the HD120 and Agility MLCs, for which differences between measured and calculated doses for some MLC-TPS combinations exceeded 10%. These large differences were particularly evident for small gap sizes (5 and 10 mm), as well as for larger gaps in the presence of tongue-and-groove effects. A much better agreement was found for the Millennium120 and Halcyon MLCs, differences being within ± 5% and ± 2.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of using a common set of tests to assess MLC models in TPSs was demonstrated. Measurements within MLC types were very similar, but TPS dose calculations showed large variations. Standardisation of the MLC configuration in TPSs is necessary. The proposed procedure can be readily applied in radiotherapy departments and can be a valuable tool in IMRT and credentialing audits.

Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels.

PURPOSE: This study (1) examines a variety of real-world cases where systematic errors were not detected by widely accepted methods for IMRT/VMAT dosimetric accuracy evaluation, and (2) drills-down to identify failure modes and their corresponding means for detection, diagnosis, and mitigation. The primary goal of detailing these case studies is to explore different, more sensitive methods and metrics that could be used more effectively for evaluating accuracy of dose algorithms, delivery systems, and QA devices. METHODS: The authors present seven real-world case studies representing a variety of combinations of the treatment planning system (TPS), linac, delivery modality, and systematic error type. These case studies are typical to what might be used as part of an IMRT or VMAT commissioning test suite, varying in complexity. Each case study is analyzed according to TG-119 instructions for gamma passing rates and action levels for per-beam and/or composite plan dosimetric QA. Then, each case study is analyzed in-depth with advanced diagnostic methods (dose profile examination, EPID-based measurements, dose difference pattern analysis, 3D measurement-guided dose reconstruction, and dose grid inspection) and more sensitive metrics (2% local normalization/2 mm DTA and estimated DVH comparisons). RESULTS: For these case studies, the conventional 3%/3 mm gamma passing rates exceeded 99% for IMRT per-beam analyses and ranged from 93.9% to 100% for composite plan dose analysis, well above the TG-119 action levels of 90% and 88%, respectively. However, all cases had systematic errors that were detected only by using advanced diagnostic techniques and more sensitive metrics. The systematic errors caused variable but noteworthy impact, including estimated target dose coverage loss of up to 5.5% and local dose deviations up to 31.5%. Types of errors included TPS model settings, algorithm limitations, and modeling and alignment of QA phantoms in the TPS. Most of the errors were correctable after detection and diagnosis, and the uncorrectable errors provided useful information about system limitations, which is another key element of system commissioning. CONCLUSIONS: Many forms of relevant systematic errors can go undetected when the currently prevalent metrics for IMRT∕VMAT commissioning are used. If alternative methods and metrics are used instead of (or in addition to) the conventional metrics, these errors are more likely to be detected, and only once they are detected can they be properly diagnosed and rooted out of the system. Removing systematic errors should be a goal not only of commissioning by the end users but also product validation by the manufacturers. For any systematic errors that cannot be removed, detecting and quantifying them is important as it will help the physicist understand the limits of the system and work with the manufacturer on improvements. In summary, IMRT and VMAT commissioning, along with product validation, would benefit from the retirement of the 3%/3 mm passing rates as a primary metric of performance, and the adoption instead of tighter tolerances, more diligent diagnostics, and more thorough analysis.