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.

[1]  G T Chen,et al.  Intensity modulated radiotherapy dose delivery error from radiation field offset inaccuracy. , 2000, Medical physics.

[2]  Commissioning of TrueBeamTM Medical Linear Accelerator: Quantitative and Qualitative Dosimetric Analysis and Comparison of Flattening Filter (FF) and Flattening Filter Free (FFF) Beam , 2016 .

[3]  R Mohan,et al.  A method for determining multileaf collimator transmission and scatter for dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2000, Medical physics.

[4]  Piotr Zygmanski,et al.  Spatial dependence of MLC transmission in IMRT delivery , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  A. Syme,et al.  Experimental characterization of the dosimetric leaf gap , 2016 .

[6]  L Kumaraswamy,et al.  Spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap and its impact on dose delivery. , 2014, Medical physics.

[7]  C. Ling,et al.  Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 1998, Medical physics.

[8]  J Eduardo Villarreal-Barajas,et al.  On the use of the MLC dosimetric leaf gap as a quality control tool for accurate dynamic IMRT delivery. , 2011, Medical physics.

[9]  Hui Yan,et al.  Commissioning and dosimetric characteristics of TrueBeam system: composite data of three TrueBeam machines. , 2012, Medical physics.

[10]  B. Choe,et al.  Effects of static dosimetric leaf gap on MLC‐based small‐beam dose distribution for intensity‐modulated radiosurgery , 2007, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[11]  Gloria P. Beyer,et al.  Commissioning measurements for photon beam data on three TrueBeam linear accelerators, and comparison with Trilogy and Clinac 2100 linear accelerators , 2013, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[12]  Stanislaw Szpala,et al.  On using the dosimetric leaf gap to model the rounded leaf ends in VMAT/RapidArc plans , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[13]  D. Yeung,et al.  A simplified methodology to produce Monte Carlo dose distributions in proton therapy , 2014, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[14]  The effect of extremely narrow MLC leaf width on the plan quality of VMAT for prostate cancer , 2016, Radiation oncology.

[15]  Clive Baldock,et al.  An experimental investigation into the radiation field offset of a dynamic multileaf collimator , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  R Alfredo C Siochi,et al.  Optimized removal of the tongue-and-groove underdose via constrained partial synchronization and variable depth recursion. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[17]  B. Paul Ravindran,et al.  Determination of dosimetric leaf gap using amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device and its influence on intensity modulated radiotherapy dose delivery , 2015, Journal of medical physics.

[18]  Weiguang Yao,et al.  Determining the optimal dosimetric leaf gap setting for rounded leaf‐end multileaf collimator systems by simple test fields , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[19]  D. Huyskens,et al.  A quantitative evaluation of IMRT dose distributions: refinement and clinical assessment of the gamma evaluation. , 2002, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[20]  K. Otto,et al.  The use of film dosimetry of the penumbra region to improve the accuracy of intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 2004, Medical physics.

[21]  Lei Wang,et al.  Verification of dosimetric accuracy on the TrueBeam STx: rounded leaf effect of the high definition MLC. , 2011, Medical physics.

[22]  Yi Rong,et al.  Parallel/Opposed: IMRT QA using treatment log files is superior to conventional measurement‐based method , 2015, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.