Dosimetric performance of the new high‐definition multileaf collimator for intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery

The objective was to evaluate the performance of a high‐definition multileaf collimator (MLC) of 2.5 mm leaf width (MLC2.5) and compare to standard 5 mm leaf width MLC (MLC5) for the treatment of intracranial lesions using dynamic conformal arcs (DCA) technique with a dedicated radiosurgery linear accelerator. Simulated cases of spherical targets were created to study solely the effect of target volume size on the performance of the two MLC systems independent of target shape complexity. In addition, 43 patients previously treated for intracranial lesions in our institution were retrospectively planned using DCA technique with MLC2.5 and MLC5 systems. The gross tumor volume ranged from 0.07 to 40.57 cm3 with an average volume of 5.9 cm3. All treatment parameters were kept the same for both MLC‐based plans. The plan evaluation was performed using figures of merits (FOM) for a rapid and objective assessment on the quality of the two treatment plans for MLC2.5 and MLC5. The prescription isodose surface was selected as the greatest isodose surface covering ≥95% of the target volume and delivering 95% of the prescription dose to 99% of target volume. A Conformity Index (CI) and conformity distance index (CDI) were used to quantifying the dose conformity to a target volume. To assess normal tissue sparing, a normal tissue difference (NTD) was defined as the difference between the volume of normal tissue receiving a certain dose utilizing MLC5 and the volume receiving the same dose using MLC2.5. The CI and normal tissue sparing for the simulated spherical targets were better with the MLC2.5 as compared to MLC5. For the clinical patients, the CI and CDI results indicated that the MLC2.5 provides better treatment conformity than MLC5 even at large target volumes. The CI's range was 1.15 to 2.44 with a median of 1.59 for MLC2.5 compared to 1.60–2.85 with a median of 1.71 for MLC5. Improved normal tissue sparing was also observed for MLC2.5 over MLC5, with the NTD always positive, indicating improvement, and ranging from 0.1 to 8.3 for normal tissue receiving 50% (NTV50), 70% (NTV70) and 90% (NTV90) of the prescription dose. The MLC2.5 has a dosimetric advantage over the MLC5 in Linac‐based radiosurgery using DCA method for intracranial lesions, both in treatment conformity and normal tissue sparing when target shape complexity increases. PACS number: 87.56J‐, 87.56 jk

[1]  R Mohan,et al.  Dose-volume histograms. , 1991, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[2]  L Souhami,et al.  Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[3]  G K Svensson,et al.  Dynamic field shaping for stereotactic radiosurgery: a modeling study. , 1993, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[4]  L. Verhey,et al.  Comparison of radiosurgery treatment modalities based on complication and control probabilities. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[5]  D D Leavitt,et al.  Beam shaping for SRT/SRS. , 1998, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[6]  L. Verhey,et al.  Comparison of radiosurgery treatment modalities based on physical dose distributions. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[7]  R Mohan,et al.  A comparison of three stereotactic radiotherapy techniques; ARCS vs. noncoplanar fixed fields vs. intensity modulation. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[8]  H D Kubo,et al.  Impact of collimator leaf width on stereotactic radiosurgery and 3D conformal radiotherapy treatment plans. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  A L Boyer,et al.  A dosimetric comparison of fan-beam intensity modulated radiotherapy with Gamma Knife stereotactic radiosurgery for treating intermediate intracranial lesions. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[10]  M. Oldham,et al.  Comparison of intensity-modulated tomotherapy with stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy for brain tumors. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[11]  S Nill,et al.  What is the optimum leaf width of a multileaf collimator? , 2000, Medical physics.

[12]  I. Paddick,et al.  A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans , 2001 .

[13]  I. Paddick A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. , 2000, Journal of neurosurgery.

[14]  L Souhami,et al.  Single dose radiosurgical treatment of recurrent previously irradiated primary brain tumors and brain metastases: final report of RTOG protocol 90-05. , 2000, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[15]  D. Gaffney,et al.  Comparison of interpolated vs. calculated micromultileaf settings in dynamic conformal arc treatment. , 2000, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[16]  M. McDermott,et al.  Dose conformity of gamma knife radiosurgery and risk factors for complications. , 2001, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[17]  J Duan,et al.  Effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on physical dose distributions in the treatment of CNS and head and neck neoplasms with intensity modulated radiation therapy. , 2002, Medical physics.

[18]  R. J. Maciunas,et al.  Quality of coverage: Conformity measures for stereotactic radiosurgery , 2003, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[19]  R. Pötter,et al.  Impact of a micromultileaf collimator on stereotactic radiotherapy of uveal melanoma. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[20]  J. Perks,et al.  Comparison of a micro-multileaf collimator with a 5-mm-leaf-width collimator for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Maria Werner-Wasik,et al.  Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial , 2004, The Lancet.

[22]  B. Gino Fallone,et al.  A TCP‐NTCP estimation module using DVHs and known radiobiological models and parameter sets , 2004, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[23]  Fang-Fang Yin,et al.  Dosimetric study using different leaf-width MLCs for treatment planning of dynamic conformal arcs and intensity-modulated radiosurgery. , 2005, Medical physics.

[24]  Georges Noël,et al.  Conformity index: a review. , 2006, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[25]  B. Lippitz,et al.  A simple dose gradient measurement tool to complement the conformity index. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery.

[26]  D. Shrieve,et al.  Is smaller better? Comparison of 3-mm and 5-mm leaf size for stereotactic radiosurgery: A dosimetric study , 2006 .

[27]  B. Salter,et al.  Conformity of LINAC-based stereotactic radiosurgery using dynamic conformal arcs and micro-multileaf collimator. , 2009, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.