• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.16 no.7
• /
• pp.863-870
• /
• 2022

DLG (Dosimetric Leaf Gap) and transmission factor are important parameters of MLC modeling in treatment planning system. In this study, DLG and transmission factor of HD-MLC were measured using detector with different measuring volumes, and the accuracy of the treatment plans was evaluated according to the DLG values. DLG was measured using the dynamic sweeping gap method with Semiflux3D and MicroDiamond detectors. Then, 10 radiation treatment plans were generated to optimize the DLG value and compared with the measurement results. Photon energies 6, 8, 10 MV, the DLG measured by Semiflux3D were 0.76, 0.83, and 0.85 mm, and DLG measured by MicroDiamond were 0.78, 0.86, and 0.9 mm. All plans were measured by portal dosimetry and analyzed using Gamma Evaluation. In the 6 MV photon beams, the average gamma passing rate were 94.3% and 98.4% for DLG 0.78 mm and 1.15 mm. In the 10 MV photon beam, the average gamma passing rate were 91.2% and 97.6% for DLG 0.9 mm and 1.25 mm. HD-MLC needs accurate modeling in the treatment planning system. DLG could be used measured data using small volume detector. However, for better radiation therapy, DLG should be optimized at the commissioning stage of LINAC.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.153-159
• /
• 2015

This study is to evaluate thedosiemtric leaf gap (DLG) at different depths for dynamic intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in order to evaluate the absolute dose and dose distribution according to the different positions of tumors and compare the measured and planned the multileaf collimator (MLC) transmission factor (T.F.) and DLG values. We used the 6 MV and 15 MV photon beam from linear accelerator with a Millenium 120 MLC system. After the import the DICOM RT files, we measured the absolute dose at different depths (2 cm, 5 cm, 10 cm, and 15 cm) to calculate the MLC T. F. and DLG. For 6 MV photon beam, the measured both MLC T. F. and DLG were increased with the increase the measured depths. When applying to treatment planning systemas fixed transmission factor with its value measured under the reference condition at depth of 5 cm, although the difference fixed and varied transmission factor is not significant, the dosiemtric effect could be presented according to the depth that the tumor is placed. Therefore, we are planning to investigate the treatment planning system whichthe T. F. and DLG factor according to at the different depths can be applied in the patient-specific treatment plan.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.111-116
• /
• 2016

This study is to evaluate the dosimetric impact of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) and transmission factor (TF) at different measurement depths and field sizes for high definition multileaf collimator (HD MLC). Consequently, its clinical implication on dose calculation of treatment planning system was also investigated for pancreas stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The TF and DLG were measured at various depths (5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 cm) and field sizes ($6{\times}6$, $8{\times}8$, and $10{\times}10cm^2$) for various energies (6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV, 10 MV flattening filter free [FFF], and 15 MV). Fifteen pancreatic SBRT cases were enrolled in the study. For each case, the dose distribution was recomputed using a reconfigured beam model of which TF and DLG was the closest to the patient geometry, and then compared to the original plan using the results of dose-volume histograms (DVH). For 10 MV FFF photon beam, its maximum difference between 2 cm and 15 cm was within 0.9% and it is increased by 0.05% from $6{\times}6cm^2$ to $10{\times}10cm^2$ for depth of 15 cm. For 10 MV FFF photon beam, the difference in DLG between the depth of 5 cm and 15 cm is within 0.005 cm for all field sizes and its maximum difference between field size of $6{\times}6cm^2$ and $10{\times}10cm^2$ is 0.0025 cm at depth of 8 cm. TF and DLG values were dependent on the depth and field size. However, the dosimetric difference between the original and recomputed doses were found to be within an acceptable range (<0.5%). In conclusion, current beam modeling using single TF and DLG values is enough for accurate dose calculation.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.168-177
• /
• 2015

For evaluating the treatment planning accurately, the quality assurance for treatment planning is recommended when patients were treated with IMRT which is complex and delicate. To realize this purpose, treatment plan quality assurance software can be used to verify the delivered dose accurately before and after of treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of treatment plan quality assurance software for each IMRT plan according to MLC DLG (dosimetric leaf gap). Novalis Tx with a built-in HD120 MLC was used in this study to acquire the MLC dynalog file be imported in MobiusFx. To establish IMRT plan, Eclipse RTP system was used and target and organ structures (multi-target, mock prostate, mock head/neck, C-shape case) were contoured in I'mRT phantom. To verify the difference of dose distribution according to DLG, MLC dynalog files were imported to MobiusFx software and changed the DLG (0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.3, 1.6 mm) values in MobiusFx. For evaluation dose, dose distribution was evaluated by using 3D gamma index for the gamma criteria 3% and distance to agreement 3 mm, and the point dose was acquired by using the CC13 ionization chamber in isocenter of I'mRT phantom. In the result for point dose, the mock head/neck and multi-target had difference about 4% and 3% in DLG 0.5 and 0.7 mm respectively, and the other DLGs had difference less than 3%. The gamma index passing-rate of mock head/neck were below 81% for PTV and cord, and multi-target were below 30% for center and superior target in DLGs 0.5, 0.7 mm, however, inferior target of multi-target case and parotid of mock head/neck case had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. The point dose of mock prostate showed difference below 3.0% in all DLGs, however, the passing rate of PTV were below 95% in 0.5, 0.7 mm DLGs, and the other DLGs were above 98%. The rectum and bladder had 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. As the difference of point dose in C-shape were 3~9% except for 1.3 mm DLG, the passing rate of PTV in 1.0 1.3 mm were 96.7, 93.0% respectively. However, passing rate of the other DLGs were below 86% and core was 100.0% passing rate in all DLGs. In this study, we verified that the accuracy of treatment planning QA system can be affected by DLG values. For precise quality assurance for treatment technique using the MLC motion like IMRT and VMAT, we should use appropriate DLG value in linear accelerator and RTP system.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.66-72
• /
• 2018

The proper position of a multi-leaf collimator (MLC) is essential for the quality of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) dose delivery. Task Group (TG) 142 provides a quality assurance (QA) procedure for MLC position. Our study investigated the QA validation of the mechanical leaf gap measurement and the maintenance procedure. Two $VitalBeam^{TM}$ systems were evaluated to validate the acceptance of an MLC position. The dosimetric leaf gaps (DLGs) were measured for 6 MV, 6 MVFFF, 10 MV, and 15 MV photon beams. A solid water phantom was irradiated using $10{\times}10cm^2$ field size at source-to-surface distance (SSD) of 90 cm and depth of 10 cm. The portal dose image prediction (PDIP) calculation was implemented on a treatment planning system (TPS) called $Eclipse^{TM}$. A total of 20 VMAT plans were used to confirm the accuracy of dose distribution measured by an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) and those predicted by VMAT plans. The measured leaf gaps were 0.30 mm and 0.35 mm for VitalBeam 1 and 2, respectively. The DLG values decreased by an average of 6.9% and 5.9% after mechanical MLC adjustment. Although the passing rates increased slightly, by 1.5% (relative) and 1.2% (absolute) in arc 1, the average passing rates were still within the good dose delivery level (>95%). Our study shows the existence of a mechanical leaf gap error caused by a degenerated MLC motor. This can be recovered by reinitialization of MLC position on the machine control panel. Consequently, the QA procedure should be performed regularly to protect the MLC system.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.105-114
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to assess of beam-matching accuracy for an 8 MV beam between the same model linear accelerators(Linac) commissioned over two years. Two models were got the customer acceptance procedure(CAP) criteria. For commissioning data for beam-matched linacs, the percentage depth doses(PDDs), beam profiles, output factors, multi-leaf collimator(MLC) leaf transmission factors, and the dosimetric leaf gap(DLG) were compared. In addition, the accuracy of beam matching was verified at phantom and patient levels. At phantom level, the point doses specified in TG-53 and TG-119 were compared to evaluate the accuracy of beam modelling. At patient level, the dose volume histogram(DVH) parameters and the delivery accuracy are evaluated on volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) plan for 40 patients that included 20 lung and 20 brain cases. Ionization depth curve and dose profiles obtained in CAP showed a good level for beam matching between both Linacs. The variations in commissioning beam data, such as PDDs, beam profiles, output factors, TF, and DLG were all less than 1%. For the treatment plans of brain tumor and lung cancer, the average and maximum differences in evaluated DVH parameters for the planning target volume(PTV) and the organs at risk(OARs) were within 0.30% and 1.30%. Furthermore, all gamma passing rates for both beam-matched Linacs were higher than 98% for the 2%/2 mm criteria and 99% for the 2%/3 mm criteria. The overall variations in the beam data, as well as tests at phantom and patient levels remains all within the tolerance (1% difference) of clinical acceptability between beam-matched Linacs. Thus, we found an excellent dosimetric agreement to 8 MV beam characteristics for the same model Linacs.

• The Journal of Korean Society for Radiation Therapy
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.47-55
• /
• 2016

To evaluate the position accuracy of the MLC. This study analyzed the variations of the dosimetric leaf gap(DLG) and MLC transmission factor to reflect the location of the MLC leaves according to the dose rate variation for dynamic IMRT. We used the 6 MV and 10 MV X-ray beams from linear accelerator with a Millennium 120 MLC system. We measured the variation of DLG and MLC transmission factor at depth of 10 cm for the water phantom by varying the dose rate to 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 MU/min using the CC13 and FC-65G chambers. For 6 MV X-ray beam, a result of measuring based on a dose rate 400 MU/min by varying the dose rate to 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 MU/min of the difference rate was respectively -2.59, -1.89, 0.00, -0.58, -2.89%. For 10 MV X-ray beam, the difference rate was respectively ?2.52, -1.69, 0.00, +1.28, -1.98%. The difference rate of MLC transmission factor was in the range of about ${\pm}1%$ of the measured values at the two types of energy and all of the dose rates. This study evaluated the variation of DLG and MLC transmission factor for the dose rate variation for dynamic IMRT. The difference of the MLC transmission factor according to the dose rate variation is negligible, but, the difference of the DLG was found to be large. Therefore, when randomly changing the dose rate dynamic IMRT, it may significantly affect the dose delivered to the tumor. Unless you change the dose rate during dynamic IMRT, it is thought that is to be the more accurate radiation therapy.