• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Medical Physics Conference
• /
• 2002.09a
• /
• pp.138-140
• /
• 2002

The spinal cord dose is the one of the limiting factor for the radiation treatment of the head & neck (H&N) or the thorax region. Due to the fact that the cord is the elongated shaped structure, it is not an easy task to maintain the cord dose within the clinically acceptable dose range. To overcome this problem, the spinal cord partial block technique (PBT) with the dynamic Multi-Leaf Collimator (dMLC) has been developed. Three dimension (3D) conformal beam directions, which minimize the coverage of the normal organs such as the lung and the parotid gland, were chosen. The PBT field shape for each field was designed to shield the spinal cord with the dMLC. The transmission factors were determined by the forward calculation method. The plan comparisons between the conventional 3D conformal therapy plan and the PTB plan were performed to evaluate the validity of this technique. The conformity index (CI) and the dose volume histogram (DVH) were used as the plan comparison indices. A series of quality assurance (QA) was performed to guarantee the reliable treatment. The QA consisted of the film dosimetry for the verification of the dose distribution and the point measurements. The PBT plan always generated better results than the conventional 3D conformal plan. The PBT was proved to be useful for the H&N and thorax region.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.269-276
• /
• 2009

Radiation treatment techniques using photon beam such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT) as well as intensity modulated radiotherapy treatment (IMRT) demand accurate dose calculation in order to increase target coverage and spare healthy tissue. Both jaw collimator and multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) for photon beams have been used to achieve such goals. In the Pinnacle3 treatment planning system (TPS), which we are using in our clinics, a set of model parameters like jaw collimator transmission factor (JTF) and MLC transmission factor (MLCTF) are determined from the measured data because it is using a model-based photon dose algorithm. However, model parameters obtained by this auto-modeling process can be different from those by direct measurement, which can have a dosimetric effect on the dose distribution. In this paper we estimated JTF and MLCTF obtained by the auto-modeling process in the Pinnacle3 TPS. At first, we obtained JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement, which were the ratio of the output at the reference depth under the closed jaw collimator (MLCs for MLCTF) to that at the same depth with the field size $10{\times}10\;cm^2$ in the water phantom. And then JTF and MLCTF were also obtained by auto-modeling process. And we evaluated the dose difference through phantom and patient study in the 3D-CRT plan. For direct measurement, JTF was 0.001966 for 6 MV and 0.002971 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.01657 for 6 MV and 0.01925 for 10 MV. On the other hand, for auto-modeling process, JTF was 0.001983 for 6 MV and 0.010431 for 10 MV, and MLCTF was 0.00188 for 6 MV and 0.00453 for 10 MV. JTF and MLCTF by direct measurement were very different from those by auto-modeling process and even more reasonable considering each beam quality of 6 MV and 10 MV. These different parameters affect the dose in the low-dose region. Since the wrong estimation of JTF and MLCTF can lead some dosimetric error, comparison of direct measurement and auto-modeling of JTF and MLCTF would be helpful during the beam commissioning.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.275-286
• /
• 2001

Purpose : To setup procedures of quality assurance (OA) for implementing intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) clinically, report OA procedures peformed for one patient with prostate cancer. Materials and methods : $P^3IMRT$ (ADAC) and linear accelerator (Siemens) with multileaf collimator are used to implement IMRT. At first, the positional accuracy, reproducibility of MLC, and leaf transmission factor were evaluated. RTP commissioning was peformed again to consider small field effect. After RTP recommissioning, a test plan of a C-shaped PTV was made using 9 intensity modulated beams, and the calculated isocenter dose was compared with the measured one in solid water phantom. As a patient-specific IMRT QA, one patient with prostate cancer was planned using 6 beams of total 74 segmented fields. The same beams were used to recalculate dose in a solid water phantom. Dose of these beams were measured with a 0.015 cc micro-ionization chamber, a diode detector, films, and an array detector and compared with calculated one. Results : The positioning accuracy of MLC was about 1 mm, and the reproducibility was around 0.5 mm. For leaf transmission factor for 10 MV photon beams, interleaf leakage was measured $1.9\%$ and midleaf leakage $0.9\%$ relative to $10\times\;cm^2$ open filed. Penumbra measured with film, diode detector, microionization chamber, and conventional 0.125 cc chamber showed that $80\~20\%$ penumbra width measured with a 0.125 cc chamber was 2 mm larger than that of film, which means a 0.125 cc ionization chamber was unacceptable for measuring small field such like 0.5 cm beamlet. After RTP recommissioning, the discrepancy between the measured and calculated dose profile for a small field of $1\times1\;cm^2$ size was less than $2\%$. The isocenter dose of the test plan of C-shaped PTV was measured two times with micro-ionization chamber in solid phantom showed that the errors upto $12\%$ for individual beam, but total dose delivered were agreed with the calculated within $2\%$. The transverse dose distribution measured with EC-L film was agreed with the calculated one in general. The isocenter dose for the patient measured in solid phantom was agreed within $1.5\%$. On-axis dose profiles of each individual beam at the position of the central leaf measured with film and array detector were found that at out-of-the-field region, the calculated dose underestimates about $2\%$, at inside-the-field the measured one was agreed within $3\%$, except some position. Conclusion : It is necessary more tight quality control of MLC for IMRT relative to conventional large field treatment and to develop QA procedures to check intensity pattern more efficiently. At the conclusion, we did setup an appropriate QA procedures for IMRT by a series of verifications including the measurement of absolute dose at the isocenter with a micro-ionization chamber, film dosimetry for verifying intensity pattern, and another measurement with an array detector for comparing off-axis dose profile.

• 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.