Premium
Dosimetry of a prototype retractable eMLC for fixed‐beam electron therapy
Author(s) -
Hogstrom Kenneth R.,
Boyd Robert A.,
Antolak John A.,
Svatos Michelle M.,
Faddegon Bruce A.,
Rosenman Julian G.
Publication year - 2004
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 - 10.1118/1.1644516
Subject(s) - dosimetry , nuclear medicine , medical physics , cathode ray , beam (structure) , optics , radiation therapy , electron , materials science , physics , medicine , radiology , nuclear physics
An electron multileaf collimator (eMLC) has been designed that is unique in that it retracts to 37 cm from the isocenter [63‐cm source‐to‐collimator distance (SCD)] and can be deployed to distances of 20 and 10 cm from the isocenter (80 and 90 cm SCD, respectively). It is expected to be capable of arc therapy at 63 cm SCD; isocentric, fixed‐beam therapy at 80 cm SCD; and source‐to‐surface distance (SSD), fixed‐beam therapy at 90 cm SCD. In all positions, its leaves could be used for unmodulated or intensity‐modulated therapy. Our goal in the present work is to describe the general characteristics of the eMLC and to demonstrate that its leakage characteristics and dosimetry are adequate for SSD, fixed‐beam therapy as an alternative to Cerrobend cutouts with applicators once the prototype's leaves are motorized. Our eMLC data showed interleaf electron leakage at 15 MeV to be less than 0.1% based on a 0.0025 cm manufacturing tolerance, and lateral electron leakage at 5 and 15 MeV to be less than 2%. X‐ray leakage through the leaves was 1.6% at 15 MeV. Our data showed that beam penumbra was independent of direction and leaf position. The dosimetric properties of square fields formed by the eMLC were very consistent with those formed by Cerrobend inserts in the 20 × 20 cm 2applicator. Output factors exhibited similar field‐size dependence. Airgap factors exhibited almost identical field‐size dependence at two SSDs (105 and 110 cm), consistent with the common assumption that airgap factors are applicator independent. Percent depth‐dose curves were similar, but showed variations up to 3% in the buildup region. The pencil‐beam algorithm (PBA) fit measured data from the eMLC and applicator‐cutout systems equally well, and the resulting two‐dimensional (2‐D) dose distributions, as predicted by the PBA, agreed well at common airgap distance. Simulating patient setups for breast and head and neck treatments showed that almost all fields could be treated using similar SSDs as when using applicators, although head and neck treatments require placing the patient's head on a head‐holder treatment table extension. The results of this work confirmed our design goals and support the potential use of the eMLC design in the clinical setting. The eMLC should allow the same treatments as are typically delivered with the electron applicator‐cutout system currently used for fixed‐beam therapy.