BackgroundThe 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.MethodsOver 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 95th 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.ResultsResults of treatment logs found that leaf RMS error and 95th 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 95th percentile leaf error were correlated.ConclusionsRestricting 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 95th percentile of leaf RMS error and 1.5 mm for the 95th percentile leaf error are suggested as action levels for all treatment types.

We performed 858 two-dimensional (2D) patient-specific intensity modulated radiotherapy verifications over a period of 18 months. Multifield, composite treatment plans were measured in phantom using calibrated Kodak EDR2 film and compared with the calculated dose extracted from two treatment planning systems. This research summarizes our findings using the normalized agreement test (NAT) index and the percent of pixels failing the gamma index as metrics to represent the agreement between measured and computed dose distributions. An in-house dose comparison software package was used to register and compare all verifications. We found it was important to use an automatic positioning algorithm to achieve maximum registration accuracy, and that our automatic algorithm agreed well with anticipated results from known phantom geometries. We also measured absolute dose for each case using an ion chamber. Because the computed distributions agreed with ion chamber measurements better than the EDR2 film doses, we normalized EDR2 data to the computed distributions. The distributions of both the NAT indices and the percentage of pixels failing the gamma index were found to be exponential distributions. We continue to use both the NAT index and percent of pixels failing gamma with 5%/3 mm criteria to evaluate future verifications, as these two metrics were found to be complementary. Our data showed that using 2%/2 mm or 3%/3 mm criteria produces results similar to those using 5%/3 mm criteria. Normalized comparisons that have a NAT index greater than 45 and/or more than 20% of the pixels failing gamma for 5%/3 mm criteria represent outliers from our clinical data set and require further analysis. Because our QA verification results were exponentially distributed, rather than a tight grouping of similar results, we continue to perform patient-specific QA in order to identify and correct outliers in our verifications. The data from this work could be useful as a reference for other clinics to indicate anticipated trends in 2D verifications under various conditions.

A method for measuring a film sensitometric curve using a single sheet of film exposed with a two field step-and-shoot MLC treatment was developed and tested with Kodak XV2 and EDR2 films. With this technique a film sensitometric curve can be completed in only 10 minutes, making it practical to generate new film calibrations daily. This method is applicable to film calibrations for all purposes, but is particularly useful in IMRT treatment verification due to the method's use of small fields. This method agrees with the traditional large-field multifilm calibration within 0.5% and will produce sensitometric curves with errors less than 1% throughout the dose range, including uncertainties in dose delivery, film response, and optical density measurements. OD values for XV2 and EDR2 films were consistent in the middle of exposure areas at high depths, but the XV2 film penumbra regions showed large amounts of over-response as the calibration depth increased. If XV2 film is used for IMRT treatment verification, it is necessary to reduce the fluence of low energy photons in areas around the film by using thin lead shields. EDR2 film was shown to have minimal energy dependence, as it accurately represented penumbra areas and yielded identical sensitometric curves generated with 6 and 18 MV photons. However, its darker tint may make it more sensitive to scanning laser film digitizers' horizontal nonuniformities. This single film method proved to be superior to the traditional calibration method and allows fast daily calibrations of films for highly accurate IMRT delivery verifications.

No abstract

Patient-specific intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) verifications require an accurate two-dimensional dosimeter that is not labor-intensive. We assessed the precision and reproducibility of film calibrations over time, measured the elemental composition of the film, measured the intermittency effect, and measured the dosimetric accuracy and reproducibility of calibrated Kodak EDR2 film for single-beam verifications in a solid water phantom and for full-plan verifications in a Rexolite phantom. Repeated measurements of the film sensitometric curve in a single experiment yielded overall uncertainties in dose of 2.1% local and 0.8% relative to 300 cGy. 547 film calibrations over an 18-month period, exposed to a range of doses from 0 to a maximum of 240 MU or 360 MU and using 6 MV or 18 MV energies, had optical density (OD) standard deviations that were 7%-15% of their average values. This indicates that daily film calibrations are essential when EDR2 film is used to obtain absolute dose results. An elemental analysis of EDR2 film revealed that it contains 60% as much silver and 20% as much bromine as Kodak XV2 film. EDR2 film also has an unusual 1.69:1 silver:halide molar ratio, compared with the XV2 film's 1.02:1 ratio, which may affect its chemical reactions. To test EDR2's intermittency effect, the OD generated by a single 300 MU exposure was compared to the ODs generated by exposing the film 1 MU, 2 MU, and 4 MU at a time to a total of 300 MU. An ion chamber recorded the relative dose of all intermittency measurements to account for machine output variations. Using small MU bursts to expose the film resulted in delivery times of 4 to 14 minutes and lowered the film's OD by approximately 2% for both 6 and 18 MV beams. This effect may result in EDR2 film underestimating absolute doses for patient verifications that require long delivery times. After using a calibration to convert EDR2 film's OD to dose values, film measurements agreed within 2% relative difference and 2 mm criteria to ion chamber measurements for both sliding window and step-and-shoot fluence map verifications. Calibrated film results agreed with ion chamber measurements to within 5 % /2 mm criteria for transverse-plane full-plan verifications, but were consistently low. When properly calibrated, EDR2 film can be an adequate two-dimensional dosimeter for IMRT verifications, although it may underestimate doses in regions with long exposure times.