Transmission probability filter optimization for Agility MLC in Monaco treatment planning system.

In the Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system (TPS) Monaco, transmission probability filters (TPF) are utilized to describe the transmission through the multi leaf collimator (MLC). By having knowledge of the TPF parameters for various photon beam energies, adjusting the MLC transmission parameters becomes easier, enhancing the accuracy of the Monte Carlo algorithm in achieving a dose distribution that closely aligns with the irradiated dose at the Versa HD linear accelerator (linac). The objective of this study was to determine the TPF parameters for 6MV, 10MV, 6MV flattening filter free (FFF) and 10MV FFF for a Versa HD linac equipped with Agility MLC. The TPF parameters were adjusted using point dose measurements and vendor-provided fields specifically designed to fine-tune the MLC. After adjusting the TPF parameters, a gamma passing rate (GPR) analysis was conducted on 25 treatment plans to ensure that the Monte Carlo model, with the updated TPF parameters, accurately matched the actual linac delivery. The TPF values ranged from 0.0018 to 0.0032 for leaf transmission and 1.15 to 1.25 for Leaf Tip leakage across the different energies. The average GPR ranged from 97.8% for 10MV FFF to 98.5% for 6MV photon energies. Additionally, the TPF parameters for 6MV obtained in this study were consistent with previously published TPF values for 6MV photon energy. Hence, it was concluded that optimizing the TPF does not need to be performed for every individual Versa HD linac with Agility MLC. Instead, the published parameters can be applied to other Versa HD linacs to enhance clinical accuracy. In conclusion, this study determined the TPF parameters for 6MV and previously unpublished photon energies 10MV, 6MV FFF and 10MV FFF. These parameters can be easily transferred to other facilities, resulting in improved agreement between the dose distribution from the TPS and the linac.

Adjustment of multi-leaf collimator parameters in 4-MV and 6-MV IMRT: A study of veterinary clinical cases.

Background: For optimal treatment, it is important to maintain optimal multi-leaf collimator (MLC) transmission in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). However, adjustment of transmissions has not been reported in veterinary medicine. Aim: To demonstrate that appropriate MLC parameter adjustment for IMRT using 4- and 6-MV energy can reduce the need for quality assurance revalidation in real companion animal clinical cases. Methods: The MLC parameters (leaf transmission and leaf offset) of the treatment planning system were adjusted by evaluating seven plans (10 × 10 cm, 3ABUT, DMLC, 7segA, FOURL, HDMLC, and HIMRT) and 20 preclinical cases (10 cases each in 4- and 6-MV groups). Subsequently, 101 IMRT plans of 88 cases (77 dogs and 11 cats) were evaluated for absolute dose of plan target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) and were analyzed for the relative dose distribution by gamma analysis (3%/3 mm, >10%) using EBT3 film. Results: After adjustment of the MLC parameters (leaf transmission and leaf offset, 4 MV: 0.008 and 0, 6 MV: 0.005 and 0, respectively), the data from 101 plans (4 MV: 64 plans and 6 MV: 37 plans) treated with IMRT showed PTV <3%, OAR <5%, and gamma analysis pass rates ≥95% in all cases. Conclusion: Clinically meaningful dose distributions can be created even with a limited validation device if the treatment parameters are adjusted appropriately, even for tumors in canines and felines, where the irradiation field is small, the target is adjacent to the OAR, and the target is often superficial.

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

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to investigate the potential differences between multi-institutional measurements and treatment planning system (TPS) calculation modeled by representative beam data for patient-specific quality assurance (QA), including multi-leaf collimator (MLC) parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven TrueBeam from nine institutions were used in this study. Volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) plan for verification was created using Eclipse. The point dose of the CC13 ionization chamber and the dose distribution of the GAFCHROMIC EBT3 film were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: Point dose differences in patient-specific QA provided a mean±standard deviation of 1.0%±0.6%. Mean gamma pass rates of dose distribution were in excess of 99% and 96% for 3%/2 mm and 2%/2 mm gamma criteria, respectively. CONCLUSION: There was good agreement between measurements and calculations, indicating the small influence of complex VMAT in the underlying processes. Therefore, implementation of the same MLC parameters on TPS among different institutions with the same planning policy should be considered to ensure consistency and efficiency in radiation treatment processes.

A comparative study of identical VMAT about two adjacent targets with and without fixed-jaw technique.

BACKGROUND: The radiation transmission through the multileaf collimators is undesired in modern techniques such as volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). According to identical plans, in this study, we aim to investigate the dosimetric impact of jaw tracking on the VMAT plans on two adjacent targets. METHODS: Two treatment plans were designed for eight pelvic (cervical) patients with two targets using the same optimization parameters. The original plan (O-plan) used automatically selected jaw positions. In the new plan (F-plan), the jaws were fixed to block two targets in two beams. The dosimetric parameters of the two plans were compared to evaluate the improvement of dose sparing for the body volume between two targets (named interOAR) in F-VMAT. RESULTS: The mean dose of interOAR reduced significantly from 654.96 ± 113.38 cGy for O-VMAT, to 490.84 ± 80.26 cGy for F-VMAT (p = 0.018). The monitor units (MUs) in the F-plans were 1.49-fold higher than that in the O-plan. The F and O-plan performed similarly in target dose homogeneity. The differences in Dmax of spinal cord, Dmax of spinal cord planning organ at risk volume, and V20, V30, and V40 of the intestine were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT plans with the fixed-jaw method can reduce the volume between two targets effectively. However, despite the plan quality, the method can only be used when the regular methods cannot reach the clinical requirements for critical organs because of additional MUs.

Dosimetric Comparison Between Jaw Tracking and No Jaw Tracking in Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: This article compares the dosimetric differences between jaw tracking and no jaw tracking technique in static intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans of large and small tumors. METHODS: Eight plans with large tumor (nasopharyngeal carcinoma, volume range: 510.9 to 768.0 cm3) and 8 plans with small tumor (single brain metastasis, volume range: 5.3 to 9.9 cm3) treated with jaw tracking on Varian EDGE LINAC were chosen and recalculated with no jaw tracking to study the dosimetric differences. We compared the differences of organ-at-risk doses (Dmax, Dmean), monitor units, and γ passing rate of plan verification (3mm/3%, threshold 10%; 2mm/2%, threshold 10%) between the 2 techniques. RESULTS: The organ-at-risk doses of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cases having jaw tracking are all less than those with no jaw tracking. The Dmax and Dmean of organ-at-risks reduced 0.61% to 17.65% and 2.17% to 19.32%, P < .05, respectively. In cases with single brain metastasis, the organ-at-risk doses with jaw tracking were also lower than no jaw tracking. The Dmax and Dmean of organ-at-risk doses reduced 0.84% to 1.52% and 0.90% to 1.86%, P < .05, respectively. The monitor units for the large tumor and small tumor were increased by 2.41% and 1.1%, respectively. The γ passing rates (3mm/3%, th10%; 2mm/2%, th10%) of nasopharyngeal carcinoma plans are 99.89% ± 0.06% (jaw tracking) versus 99.56% ± 0.19% (no jaw tracking; P = .127); 97.15% ± 0.98% (jaw tracking) versus 91.90% ± 1.40% (no jaw tracking; P = .000), and the γ passing rates (3mm/3%, th10%; 2mm/2%, th10%) of brain metastasis plans are 99.97% ± 0.05% (jaw tracking) versus 99.44% ± 1.24% (no jaw tracking; P = .251), 98.65% ± 1.27% (jaw tracking) versus 93.35% ± 2.72% (no jaw tracking; P = .000). CONCLUSION: Jaw tracking can reduce the dose of organ-at-risks compared to no jaw tracking, and the effect is more significant for plans with large tumor. The γ passing rate of plans with jaw tracking is also higher than the plans with no jaw tracking. Although the monitor units in plans of jaw tracking will increase slightly, it is recommended to use jaw tracking in static intensity-modulated radiation therapy both in large and in small tumors.

Agility MLC transmission optimization in the Monaco treatment planning system.

The Monaco Monte Carlo treatment planning system uses three-beam model components to achieve accuracy in dose calculation. These components include a virtual source model (VSM), transmission probability filters (TPFs), and an x-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) engine to calculate the dose in the patient. The aim of this study was to assess the TPF component of the Monaco TPS and optimize the TPF parameters using measurements from an Elekta linear accelerator with an Agility™ multileaf collimator (MLC). The optimization began with all TPF parameters set to their default value. The function of each TPF parameter was characterized and a value was selected that best replicated measurements with the Agility™ MLC. Both vendor provided fields and a set of additional test fields were used to create a rigorous systematic process, which can be used to optimize the TPF parameters. It was found that adjustment of the TPF parameters based on this process resulted in improved point dose measurements and improved 3D gamma analysis pass rates with Octavius 4D. All plans calculated with the optimized beam model had a gamma pass rate of > 95% using criteria of 2% global dose/2 mm distance-to-agreement, while some plans calculated with the default beam model had pass rates as low as 88.4%. For measured point doses, the improvement was particularly noticeable in the low-dose regions of the clinical plans. In these regions, the average difference from the planned dose reduced from 4.4 ± 4.5% to 0.9 ± 2.7% with a coverage factor (k = 2) using the optimized beam model. A step-by-step optimization guide is provided at the end of this study to assist in the optimization of the TPF parameters in the Monaco TPS. Although it is possible to achieve good clinical results by randomly selecting TPF parameter values, it is recommended that the optimization process outlined in this study is followed so that the transmission through the TPF is characterized appropriately.

Evaluation of MLC leaf transmission on IMRT treatment plan quality of patients with advanced lung cancer.

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the impact of leaf treatment of multileaf collimator (MLC) in plan quality of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) of patients with advanced lung cancer. Five MLCs with different leaf transmissions (0.01%, 0.5%, 1.2%, 1.8%, and 3%) were configured for an accelerator in a treatment planning system. Correspondingly, 5 treatment plans with the same optimization setting were created and evaluated quantitatively for each patient (11 patients total) who was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. All of the 5 plans for each patient met the dose requirement for the planning treatment volumes (PTVs) and had similar target dose homogeneity and conformity. On average, the doses to selected organs were as follows: (1) V5, V20, and the mean dose of total lung; (2) the maximum and mean dose to spinal cord planning organ-at-risk volume (PRV); and (3) V30 and V40 of heart, decreased slightly when MLC transmission was decreased, but with no statistical differences. There is a clear grouping of plans having total quality score (SD) value, which is used to evaluate plan quality: (1) more than 1 (patient nos. 1 to 3, 5, and 8), and more than 2.5 (patient no. 6); (2) less than 1 (patient nos. 7 and 10); (3) around 1 (patient nos. 4, 9, and 11). As MLC transmission increased, overall SD values increased as well and plan dose requirement was harder to meet. The clinical requirements were violated increasingly as MLC transmission became large. Total SD with and without normal tissue (NT) showed similar results, with no statistically significant differences. Therefore, decrease of MLC transmission did have minimum impact on plan, and it improved target coverage and reduced normal tissue radiation slightly, with no statistical significance. Plan quality could not be significantly improved by MLC transmission reduction. However, lower MLC transmission may have advantages on lung sparing to low- and intermediate-dose exposure. Besides conventional fraction, hyperfraction, or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), the reduction on lung sparing is still essential because it is highly relevant to radiation pneumonitis (RP). It has potential to diminish incidence of RP and improve patient's quality of life after irradiation with lowered MLC transmission.

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

AIM: Objective of present study is to determine optimum value of DLG and its validation prior to being incorporated in TPS for Varian TrueBeam™ millennium 120 leaves MLC. BACKGROUND: Partial transmission through the rounded leaf ends of the Multi Leaf Collimator (MLC) causes a conflict between the edges of the light field and radiation field. Parameter account for this partial transmission is called Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG). The complex high precession technique, such as Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT), entails the modeling of optimum value of DLG inside Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) for precise dose calculation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Distinct synchronized uniformed extension of sweeping dynamic MLC leaf gap fields created by Varian MLC shaper software were use to determine DLG. DLG measurements performed with both 0.13 cc semi-flex ionization chamber and 2D-Array I-Matrix were used to validate the DLG; similarly, values of DLG from TPS were estimated from predicted dose. Similar mathematical approaches were employed to determine DLG from delivered and TPS predicted dose. DLG determined from delivered dose measured with both ionization chamber (DLGIon) and I-Matrix (DLGI-Matrix) compared with DLG estimate from TPS predicted dose (DLGTPS). Measurements were carried out for all available 6MV, 10MV, 15MV, 6MVFFF and 10MVFFF beam energies. RESULTS: Maximum and minimum DLG deviation between measured and TPS calculated DLG was found to be 0.2 mm and 0.1 mm, respectively. Both of the measured DLGs (DLGIon and DLGI-Matrix) were found to be in a very good agreement with estimated DLG from TPS (DLGTPS). CONCLUSIONS: Proposed method proved to be helpful in verifying and validating the DLG value prior to its clinical implementation in TPS.

Dosimetric characteristics of LinaTech DMLC H multi leaf collimator: Monte Carlo simulation and experimental study.

This study evaluated the basic dosimetric characteristics of a Dynamic Multi Leaf Collimator (DMLC) using a diode detector and film measurements for Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (IMRT QA). The EGSnrc Monte Carlo (MC) simulation system was used for the determination of MLC characteristics. Radiation transmission and abutting leaf leakage relevant to the LinaTech DMLC H were measured using an EDGE detector and EBT3 film. In this study, the BEAMnrc simulation code was used for modeling. The head of Siemens PRIMUS linac (6 MV) with external DMLC H was entered into a BEAMnrc Monte Carlo model using practical dosimetry data. Leaf material density, as well as interleaf and abutting air gaps were determined according to the computed and measured dose profiles. The IMRT QA field was used to evaluate the dose distribution of the simulated DMLC H. According to measurements taken with the EDGE detector and film, the total average measured leakage was 1.60 ± 0.03% and 1.57 ± 0.05%, respectively. For these measurements, abutting leaf transmission was 54.35 ± 1.85% and 53.08 ± 2.05%, respectively. To adapt the simulated leaf dose profiles with measurements, leaf material density, interleaf and abutting air gaps were adjusted to 18 g/cm3 , 0.008 cm and 0.108 cm, respectively. Thus, the total average leakage was estimated to be about 1.59 ± 0.02%. The step-and-shoot IMRT was implemented and 94% agreement was achieved between the film and MC, using 3%-3 mm gamma criteria. The results of this study showed that the dosimetric characteristics of DMLC H satisfied international standards.

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

As complex treatment techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) entail the modeling of rounded leaf-end transmission in the treatment planning system, it is important to accurately determine the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value for a precise calculation of dose. The advancements in the application of the electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in quality assurance (QA) and dosimetry have facilitated the determination of DLG in this study. The DLG measurements were performed using both the ionization chamber (DLGion) and EPID (DLGEPID) for sweeping gap fields of different widths. The DLGion values were found to be 1.133 mm and 1.120 mm for perpendicular and parallel orientations of the 0.125 cm(3) ionization chamber, while the corresponding DLGEPID values were 0.843 mm and 0.819 mm, respectively. It was found that the DLG was independent of volume and orientation of the ionization chamber, depth, source to surface distance (SSD), and the rate of dose delivery. Since the patient-specific QA tests showed comparable results between the IMRT plans based on the DLGEPID and DLGion, it is concluded that the EPID can be a suitable alternative in the determination of DLG.