Lateral loss and dose discrepancies of multileaf collimator segments in intensity modulated radiation therapy.

In the step-and-shoot technique delivery of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), each static field consists of a number of beamlets, some of which may be very small. In this study, we measured the dose characteristics for a range of field sizes: 2 x 2 to 12 x 10 cm2 for 6 and 15 MV x rays. For a given field length, a number of treatment fields are set up by sequentially increasing the field width using a multi leaf collimator. A set of fields is delivered with the accelerator operated in the IMRT mode. Using an ion chamber, the output factors at 1 cm and 3 cm laterally from a field edge are measured at different depths in a solid water phantom. Our results show that with insufficient lateral distance in at least one direction, the absorbed dose never reaches the equilibrium values, and can be significantly lower for very small field sizes. For example, the output factor of the 2 x 2 cm2 field relative to 10 x 10 cm2 at d(max0 is 0.832 and 0.790 for 6 MV and 15 MV x rays, respectively. Multiple output factor curves are obtained for different field lengths and different buildup conditions. Thus under nonequilibrium conditions, output factors are critically dependent on the field size and the conventional method of determining the equivalent square does not apply. Comparison of output factors acquired in the commissioning of the accelerator with those measured in the present study under conditions of nonequilibrium shows large discrepancies between the two sets of measurements. Thus monitor units generated by a treatment planning system using beam data commissioned with symmetric fields may be underestimated by > 5%, depending on the size and shape of the segments. To facilitate manual MU calculation as an independent check in step-and-shoot IMRT, the concept of effective equivalent square (EES) is introduced. Using EES, output factors can be calculated using existing beam data for fields with asymmetric collimator settings and under conditions of lateral disequilibrium.

[1]  F. Khan.  The physics of radiation therapy , 1985 .

[2]  S. Jani,et al.  Effect of collimator setting on the output of rectangular fields from linear accelerators. , 1988, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[3]  T. Cullip,et al.  Intensity modulation delivery techniques: "step & shoot" MLC auto-sequence versus the use of a modulator. , 2000, Medical physics.

[4]  B. Bjärngard,et al.  Attenuation in very narrow photon beams. , 1989, Radiation research.

[5]  M. C. Murillo,et al.  Dose calculation and verification of intensity modulation generated by dynamic multileaf collimators. , 2000, Medical physics.

[6]  P M Evans,et al.  Quality assurance of the dose delivered by small radiation segments. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  T R Mackie,et al.  Characterization of the output for helical delivery of intensity modulated slit beams. , 1999, Medical physics.

[8]  H. Thierens,et al.  Dose measurements compared with Monte Carlo simulations of narrow 6 MV multileaf collimator shaped photon beams. , 1999, Medical physics.

[9]  I. Das,et al.  Choice of Radiation Detector in Dosimetry of Stereotactic Radiosurgery-Radiotherapy , 2000 .

[10]  J. Tsai,et al.  Dosimetric comparison of stereotactic radiosurgery to intensity modulated radiotherapy. , 1998, Radiation oncology investigations.

[11]  G K Svensson,et al.  Measurements of dose distributions in small beams of 6 MV x-rays. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  D Yan,et al.  Monitor unit settings for intensity modulated beams delivered using a step-and-shoot approach. , 2000, Medical physics.

[13]  Cedric X. Yu,et al.  Intensity-modulated arc therapy with dynamic multileaf collimation: an alternative to tomotherapy. , 1995, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  R. J. Barish,et al.  Teletherapy beam characteristics: the first second. , 1987, Medical physics.

[15]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  X-ray field compensation with multileaf collimators. , 1994, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  I. Das,et al.  Comparison of beam characteristics in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and those under normal treatment condition. , 2002 .

[17]  W. Simon,et al.  Total scatter factors and tissue maximum ratios for small radiosurgery fields: comparison of diode detectors, a parallel-plate ion chamber, and radiographic film. , 2000, Medical physics.

[18]  S L Meeks,et al.  Clinical implications of collimator exchange effect, relative collimator and phantom scatter. , 1996, Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

[19]  Quality assurance in IMRT: importance of the transmission through the jaws for an accurate calculation of absolute doses and relative distributions. , 2002, Medical physics.

[20]  F Nüsslin,et al.  Investigation of photon beam output factors for conformal radiation therapy--Monte Carlo simulations and measurements. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  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.

[22]  W Schlegel,et al.  Intensity modulation with the "step and shoot" technique using a commercial MLC: a planning study. Multileaf collimator. , 1999, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  B. Bjärngard,et al.  Doses on the central axes of narrow 6-MV x-ray beams. , 1990, Medical physics.

[24]  M J Rivard,et al.  Dependence of linac output on the switch rate of an intensity-modulated tomotherapy collimator. , 2000, Medical physics.

[25]  H Palmans,et al.  Underdosage of the upper-airway mucosa for small fields as used in intensity-modulated radiation therapy: a comparison between radiochromic film measurements, Monte Carlo simulations, and collapsed cone convolution calculations. , 2002, Medical physics.

[26]  C C Ling,et al.  Delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy with a conventional multileaf collimator: comparison of dynamic and segmental methods. , 2001, Medical physics.

[27]  F Verhaegen,et al.  Monte Carlo dosimetry study of a 6 MV stereotactic radiosurgery unit. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[28]  D J Dawson.  Elongation effects on the Therac 6 linear accelerator. , 1978, Medical physics.

[29]  T E Schultheiss,et al.  Beam characteristics of a retrofitted double-focused multileaf collimator. , 1998, Medical physics.

[30]  Murshed Hossain,et al.  Output variation from an intensity modulating dynamic collimator. , 2002, Medical physics.

[31]  I J Das,et al.  Dosimetric accuracy at low monitor unit settings. , 1991, The British journal of radiology.

[32]  I. Das,et al.  Suppression of dark current radiation in step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy by the initial pulse-forming network. , 2002, Medical physics.