Premium
Using the volumetric effect of a finite‐sized detector for routine quality assurance of multileaf collimator leaf positioning
Author(s) -
Yang Yong,
Xing Lei
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.1543150
Subject(s) - multileaf collimator , quality assurance , collimator , detector , linear particle accelerator , computer science , dosimetry , nuclear medicine , optics , physics , beam (structure) , medicine , external quality assessment , pathology
Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an advanced form of radiation therapy and promises to improve dose conformation while reducing the irradiation to the sensitive structures. The modality is, however, more complicated than conventional treatment and requires much more stringent quality assurance (QA) to ensure what has been planned can be achieved accurately. One of the main QA tasks is the assurance of positioning accuracy of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaves during IMRT delivery. Currently, the routine quality assurance of MLC in most clinics is being done using radiographic films with specially designed MLC leaf sequences. Besides being time consuming, the results of film measurements are difficult to quantify and interpret. In this work, we propose a new and effective technique for routine MLC leaf positioning QA. The technique utilizes the fact that, when a finite‐sized detector is placed under a leaf, the relative output of the detector will depend on the relative fractional volume irradiated. A small error in leaf positioning would change the fractional volume irradiated and lead to a deviation of the relative output from the normal reading. For a given MLC and detector system, the relation between the relative output and the leaf displacement can be easily established through experimental measurements and used subsequently as a quantitative means for detecting possible leaf positional errors. The method was tested using a linear accelerator with an 80‐leaf MLC. Three different locations, including two locations on central plane (X1=X2=0) and one point on an off‐central plane location (X1=−7.5, X=7.5), were studied. Our results indicated that the method could accurately detect a leaf positional change of ∼0.1 mm. The method was also used to monitor the stability of MLC leaf positioning for five consecutive weeks. In this test, we intentionally introduced two positional errors in the testing MLC leaf sequences: −0.2 mm and 1.2 mm. The technique was found to be robust and could detect the positional inaccuracy in each week's test. The influence of other possible error sources, including the ion chamber placement, jaw settings, gantry and collimator angle read‐outs, and the positioning errors of the adjacent leaves, on detection accuracy were also investigated. The principle of our method is independent of the types of the MLC and the detector and may have significant practical implications in facilitating routine MLC QA for IMRT delivery.