Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Relationship between dosimetric leaf gap and dose calculation errors for high definition multi-leaf collimators in radiotherapy.
Kim, Jinkoo; Han, James S; Hsia, An Ting; Li, Shidong; Xu, Zhigang; Ryu, Samuel.
Affiliation
  • Kim J; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY, United States.
  • Han JS; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY, United States.
  • Hsia AT; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY, United States.
  • Li S; Department of Radiation Oncology, FoxChase Cancer Center at Temple Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
  • Xu Z; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY, United States.
  • Ryu S; Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook University Hospital, Stony Brook, NY, United States.
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol ; 5: 31-36, 2018 Jan.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33458366
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

PURPOSE:

Dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) is a parameter to model the round-leaf-end effect of multi-leaf collimators (MLC) that is important for treatment planning dose calculations in radiotherapy. In this study we investigated on the relationship between the DLG values and the dose calculation errors for a high-definition MLC. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Three sets of experiments were conducted (1) physical DLG measurements using sweeping-gap technique, (2) DLG adjustment based on spine radiosurgery plan measurements, and (3) DLG verification using films and ion-chambers (IC). All experiments were conducted on a Varian Edge machine equipped with HD120 MLC for 6X, 6XFFF, and 10XFFF (FFF flattening filter free). The Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm was used for all dose calculations.

RESULTS:

The measured physical DLGs were 0.39 mm, 0.27 mm, and 0.42 mm for 6X, 6XFFF, and 10XFFF respectively. The calculated doses were lower by 4.2% (6X), 3.7% (6XFFF), and 6.8% (10XFFF) than the measured, while the adjusted DLG values with minimum errors were 1.1 mm, 0.9 mm, and 1.5 mm. The IC measurement errors were < 1%, and the film gamma pass rates (3%/3 mm) were greater than 97% for the spine plans.

CONCLUSIONS:

The calculated doses were systematically lower than measured doses with the physical DLG values. It was necessary to increase the DLG values to minimize the dose calculation uncertainty. The optimal DLG values may be specific to individual MLCs and beams and, thus, careful evaluation and verification are warranted.

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Year: 2018 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Year: 2018 Document type: Article Affiliation country:
...