A multi-institution evaluation of MLC log files and performance in IMRT delivery

Radiation Oncology

Stephen F Kry²  Nathan Childress¹  James R Kerns² 

[1] Mobius Medical Systems, LP, Houston, TX 77401, USA;Radiological Physics Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA

关键词: Tolerance levels;    RMS error;    Dynalogs;    MLC error;    MLC;   

Others  :  1151978
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-717X-9-176

 received in 2014-02-10, accepted in 2014-07-21,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The multileaf collimator (MLC) is a critical component to accurate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery. This study examined MLC positional accuracy via MLC logs from Varian machines from six institutions and three delivery techniques to evaluate typical positional accuracy and treatment and mechanical parameters that affect accuracy. Typical accuracy achieved was compared against TG-142 recommendations for MLC performance; more appropriate recommendations are suggested.

Methods

Over 85,000 Varian MLC treatment logs were collected from six institutions and analyzed with FractionCHECK. Data were binned according to institution and treatment type to determine overall root mean square (RMS) and 95^th percentile error values, and then to look for correlations between those errors and with mechanical and treatment parameters including mean and maximum leaf speed, gantry angle, beam-on time, mean leaf error, and number of segments.

Results

Results of treatment logs found that leaf RMS error and 95^th percentile leaf error were consistent between institutions, but varied by treatment type. The step and shoot technique had very small errors: the mean RMS leaf error was 0.008 mm. For dynamic treatments the mean RMS leaf error was 0.32 mm, while volumetric-modulated arc treatment (VMAT) showed an RMS leaf error of 0.46 mm. Most MLC leaf errors were found to be well below TG-142 recommended tolerances. For the dynamic and VMAT techniques, the mean and maximum leaf speeds were significantly linked to the leaf RMS error. Additionally, for dynamic delivery, the mean leaf error was correlated with RMS error, whereas for VMAT the average gantry speed was correlated. For all treatments, the RMS error and the 95^th percentile leaf error were correlated.

Conclusions

Restricting the maximum leaf speed can help improve MLC performance for dynamic and VMAT deliveries. Furthermore, the tolerances of leaf RMS and error counts for all treatment types should be tightened from the TG-142 values to make them more appropriate for clinical performance. Values of 1 mm for the 95^th percentile of leaf RMS error and 1.5 mm for the 95^th percentile leaf error are suggested as action levels for all treatment types.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kerns et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Agnew CE, King RB, Hounsell AR, McGarry CK: Implementation of phantom-less IMRT delivery verification using Varian DynaLog files and R/V output. Phys Med Biol 2012, 57(21):6761-6777.
• [2]Sun B, Rangaraj D, Boddu S, Goddu M, Yang D, Palaniswaamy G, Yaddanapudi S, Wooten O, Mutic S: “Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA,”. J Appl Clin Med Phys Am Coll Med Phys 2012, 13(5):3837.
• [3]Litzenberg DW, Moran JM, Fraass BA: Verification of dynamic and segmental IMRT delivery by dynamic log file analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys Am Coll Med Phys 2002, 3(2):63-72.
• [4]Luo W, Li J, Price RA Jr, Chen L, Yang J, Fan J, Chen Z, McNeeley S, Xu X, Ma C-M: Monte Carlo based IMRT dose verification using MLC log files and R/V outputs. Med Phys 2006, 33(7):2557-2564.
• [5]Klein EE, Hanley J, Bayouth J, Yin F-F, Simon W, Dresser S, Serago C, Aguirre F, Ma L, Arjomandy B, Liu C, Sandin C, Holmes T, Task Group 142, American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Task group 142 report: quality assurance of medical accelerators. Med Phys 2009, 36(9):4197-4212.
• [6]Stell AM, Li JG, Zeidan OA, Dempsey JF: An extensive log-file analysis of step-and-shoot intensity modulated radiation therapy segment delivery errors. Med Phys 2004, 31(6):1593-1602.
• [7]Ling CC, Zhang P, Archambault Y, Bocanek J, Tang G, Losasso T: Commissioning and quality assurance of RapidArc radiotherapy delivery system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 72(2):575-581.
• [8]Litzenberg DW, Moran JM, Fraass BA: Incorporation of realistic delivery limitations into dynamic MLC treatment delivery. Med Phys 2002, 29(5):810-820.
• [9]Rangel A, Dunscombe P: Tolerances on MLC leaf position accuracy for IMRT delivery with a dynamic MLC. Med Phys 2009, 36(7):3304-3309.
• [10]Betzel GT, Yi BY, Niu Y, Yu CX: Is RapidArc more susceptible to delivery uncertainties than dynamic IMRT? Med Phys 2012, 39(10):5882-5890.
• [11]Mu G, Ludlum E, Xia P: Impact of MLC leaf position errors on simple and complex IMRT plans for head and neck cancer. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53(1):77-88.
• [12]Bai S, Li G, Wang M, Jiang Q, Zhang Y, Wei Y: Effect of MLC leaf position, collimator rotation angle, and gantry rotation angle errors on intensity-modulated radiotherapy plans for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Med Dosim Off J Am Assoc Med Dosim 2013, 38(2):143-147.
• [13]Zhang Y, Li Y, Xia H, Wang J: Impact of dose rates on the position accuracy of multi-leaf collimator. Radiat Phys Chem 2012, 81(12):1813-1816.
• [14]Otto K: Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys 2008, 35(1):310-317.
• [15]Losasso T: IMRT delivery performance with a varian multileaf collimator. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 71(1):S85-S88.