Premium
SU‐G‐TeP4‐03: A Multileaf Collimator Calibration and Quality Assurance Technique Using An Electronic Portal Imaging Device
Author(s) -
Lebron S,
Yan G,
Li J,
Lu B,
Liu C
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4957128
Subject(s) - multileaf collimator , isocenter , offset (computer science) , optics , collimator , calibration , image resolution , quality assurance , image quality , standard deviation , physics , pixel , nuclear medicine , linear particle accelerator , mathematics , beam (structure) , computer science , imaging phantom , artificial intelligence , medicine , image (mathematics) , statistics , external quality assessment , pathology , quantum mechanics , programming language
Purpose: To develop an accurate and quick multileaf collimator (MLC) calibration and quality assurance technique using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) Methods: The MLC models used include the MLCi and Agility (Elekta Ltd). This technique consists of two 22(L)x10(W) cm 2 fields with 0 0 and 180 0 collimator angles centered to an offset EPID. The MLC opening is estimated by calculating the profile at the image's center in the image's horizontal direction. Scans in the image's vertical direction were calculated every 20 pixels in the inner 70% of estimated MLC opening. The profiles’ edges were fitted with linear equations to determine the image's rotation angle. Then, crossline profiles were scanned at the center of each leaf taking into account the leaf's width at isocenter and the rotation angle. The profiles’ edges determine the location of the leaves’ edges and these were subtracted from the reference leaf's position in order to determine the relative leaf offsets. The edge location of all profiles was determined by using the parameterized gradient of the penumbra region. The technique was tested against an established diode array‐based method, and for different MLC systems, patterns, gantry angles, days, energies, beam modalities and MLC openings. Results: The differences between the proposed and established methods were 0.26±0.19mm. The leaf offsets’ deviation was <0.3mm (5 months period). For pattern fields, the differences between predetermined and calculated offsets were 0.18±0.18mm. The leaf offset deviation of measurements with different energies and MLC openings were <0.1mm and <0.3mm, respectively. The differences between offsets of FF and FFF beams were 0.01±0.02mm (<0.07mm). The differences between the offsets at different gantry angles were 0.08±0.15mm. Conclusion: The proposed method proved to be accurate and efficient in calculating the relative leaf offsets. Parameterized field edge is essential to obtain accurate result by eliminating the noise from EPID.