SU‐E‐T‐484: Impact of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Positioning Accuracy on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

T. Kishi, T. Kawashita, M. Sasaki, Y. Hara, Y. Fukunaga, M. Tominaga, H. Ikushima, Masataka Oita

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: It is reported to have an impact on dose due to uncertainty of MLC drive control in IMRT using MLC. It is reported to have displacement of about 0.5mm in a month as changes over time of MLC drive control accuracy installed in LINAC made by SIEMENS. There is fear that these changes over time contribute to dose distribution when SMLC‐IMRT is practiced. Methods: For LINAC, We used PRIMUS High‐Energy KD2 7467 (Siemens Medical Systems) that generates 10MV‐X rays. MLC installed in this therapy machine is MLC‐20A (Toshiba Medical Systems) with lower collimator replaced by MLC of 29 pairs and adopts double focus that does focusing with two aspects in a structure of MLC's leaf tip and side contacting always parallel to dose angle. We used Kodak Extended Dose Range2 (Carestream health Inc.) for film, D.D.system (R‐TECH Inc.) for film analyzer, flat bed scanner ES‐10000G (EPSON Corp.) for film reader and Xio‐version4.50.00 (ELEKTA) for RTP. We studied the impact of MLC drive control accuracy on dose evaluation (gamma analysis) measuring IMRT dose distribution as well as evaluating MLC drive control accuracy (resting positional accuracy and position reproducibility) once a week for 60 days. Results: MLC positional accuracy tended to expand by 0.1–0.15mm in one week accompanied by changes over time and tended to expand by about 1mm in 60 days. The reproducibility was within 0.2mm for roughly over 95%. For prostate gland IMRT, I did not see a significant difference in pass rate of y analysis if the resting positional accuracy of MLC is about 1 mm. Conclusions: It was suggested that it would be an effective index to continue IMRT safely in the future by practicing regular management upon setting an acceptable value by MLC positional accuracy test. This study was supported, in part, by a grant of the Japanese Society of Radiologocal Technology(JSRT).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3600
Number of pages1
JournalMedical Physics
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

Radiotherapy
Organized Financing
Uncertainty
Fear
Prostate
Technology
Drive
Health
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

SU‐E‐T‐484 : Impact of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Positioning Accuracy on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. / Kishi, T.; Kawashita, T.; Sasaki, M.; Hara, Y.; Fukunaga, Y.; Tominaga, M.; Ikushima, H.; Oita, Masataka.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011, p. 3600.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kishi, T, Kawashita, T, Sasaki, M, Hara, Y, Fukunaga, Y, Tominaga, M, Ikushima, H & Oita, M 2011, 'SU‐E‐T‐484: Impact of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Positioning Accuracy on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy', Medical Physics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3600. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3612437
Kishi, T. ; Kawashita, T. ; Sasaki, M. ; Hara, Y. ; Fukunaga, Y. ; Tominaga, M. ; Ikushima, H. ; Oita, Masataka. / SU‐E‐T‐484 : Impact of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Positioning Accuracy on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. In: Medical Physics. 2011 ; Vol. 38, No. 6. pp. 3600.
@article{a4c581168bf84b6e8290a486710f87cb,
title = "SU‐E‐T‐484: Impact of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Positioning Accuracy on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy",
abstract = "Purpose: It is reported to have an impact on dose due to uncertainty of MLC drive control in IMRT using MLC. It is reported to have displacement of about 0.5mm in a month as changes over time of MLC drive control accuracy installed in LINAC made by SIEMENS. There is fear that these changes over time contribute to dose distribution when SMLC‐IMRT is practiced. Methods: For LINAC, We used PRIMUS High‐Energy KD2 7467 (Siemens Medical Systems) that generates 10MV‐X rays. MLC installed in this therapy machine is MLC‐20A (Toshiba Medical Systems) with lower collimator replaced by MLC of 29 pairs and adopts double focus that does focusing with two aspects in a structure of MLC's leaf tip and side contacting always parallel to dose angle. We used Kodak Extended Dose Range2 (Carestream health Inc.) for film, D.D.system (R‐TECH Inc.) for film analyzer, flat bed scanner ES‐10000G (EPSON Corp.) for film reader and Xio‐version4.50.00 (ELEKTA) for RTP. We studied the impact of MLC drive control accuracy on dose evaluation (gamma analysis) measuring IMRT dose distribution as well as evaluating MLC drive control accuracy (resting positional accuracy and position reproducibility) once a week for 60 days. Results: MLC positional accuracy tended to expand by 0.1–0.15mm in one week accompanied by changes over time and tended to expand by about 1mm in 60 days. The reproducibility was within 0.2mm for roughly over 95{\%}. For prostate gland IMRT, I did not see a significant difference in pass rate of y analysis if the resting positional accuracy of MLC is about 1 mm. Conclusions: It was suggested that it would be an effective index to continue IMRT safely in the future by practicing regular management upon setting an acceptable value by MLC positional accuracy test. This study was supported, in part, by a grant of the Japanese Society of Radiologocal Technology(JSRT).",
author = "T. Kishi and T. Kawashita and M. Sasaki and Y. Hara and Y. Fukunaga and M. Tominaga and H. Ikushima and Masataka Oita",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1118/1.3612437",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "3600",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - SU‐E‐T‐484

T2 - Impact of Multileaf Collimator Leaf Positioning Accuracy on Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy

AU - Kishi, T.

AU - Kawashita, T.

AU - Sasaki, M.

AU - Hara, Y.

AU - Fukunaga, Y.

AU - Tominaga, M.

AU - Ikushima, H.

AU - Oita, Masataka

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Purpose: It is reported to have an impact on dose due to uncertainty of MLC drive control in IMRT using MLC. It is reported to have displacement of about 0.5mm in a month as changes over time of MLC drive control accuracy installed in LINAC made by SIEMENS. There is fear that these changes over time contribute to dose distribution when SMLC‐IMRT is practiced. Methods: For LINAC, We used PRIMUS High‐Energy KD2 7467 (Siemens Medical Systems) that generates 10MV‐X rays. MLC installed in this therapy machine is MLC‐20A (Toshiba Medical Systems) with lower collimator replaced by MLC of 29 pairs and adopts double focus that does focusing with two aspects in a structure of MLC's leaf tip and side contacting always parallel to dose angle. We used Kodak Extended Dose Range2 (Carestream health Inc.) for film, D.D.system (R‐TECH Inc.) for film analyzer, flat bed scanner ES‐10000G (EPSON Corp.) for film reader and Xio‐version4.50.00 (ELEKTA) for RTP. We studied the impact of MLC drive control accuracy on dose evaluation (gamma analysis) measuring IMRT dose distribution as well as evaluating MLC drive control accuracy (resting positional accuracy and position reproducibility) once a week for 60 days. Results: MLC positional accuracy tended to expand by 0.1–0.15mm in one week accompanied by changes over time and tended to expand by about 1mm in 60 days. The reproducibility was within 0.2mm for roughly over 95%. For prostate gland IMRT, I did not see a significant difference in pass rate of y analysis if the resting positional accuracy of MLC is about 1 mm. Conclusions: It was suggested that it would be an effective index to continue IMRT safely in the future by practicing regular management upon setting an acceptable value by MLC positional accuracy test. This study was supported, in part, by a grant of the Japanese Society of Radiologocal Technology(JSRT).

AB - Purpose: It is reported to have an impact on dose due to uncertainty of MLC drive control in IMRT using MLC. It is reported to have displacement of about 0.5mm in a month as changes over time of MLC drive control accuracy installed in LINAC made by SIEMENS. There is fear that these changes over time contribute to dose distribution when SMLC‐IMRT is practiced. Methods: For LINAC, We used PRIMUS High‐Energy KD2 7467 (Siemens Medical Systems) that generates 10MV‐X rays. MLC installed in this therapy machine is MLC‐20A (Toshiba Medical Systems) with lower collimator replaced by MLC of 29 pairs and adopts double focus that does focusing with two aspects in a structure of MLC's leaf tip and side contacting always parallel to dose angle. We used Kodak Extended Dose Range2 (Carestream health Inc.) for film, D.D.system (R‐TECH Inc.) for film analyzer, flat bed scanner ES‐10000G (EPSON Corp.) for film reader and Xio‐version4.50.00 (ELEKTA) for RTP. We studied the impact of MLC drive control accuracy on dose evaluation (gamma analysis) measuring IMRT dose distribution as well as evaluating MLC drive control accuracy (resting positional accuracy and position reproducibility) once a week for 60 days. Results: MLC positional accuracy tended to expand by 0.1–0.15mm in one week accompanied by changes over time and tended to expand by about 1mm in 60 days. The reproducibility was within 0.2mm for roughly over 95%. For prostate gland IMRT, I did not see a significant difference in pass rate of y analysis if the resting positional accuracy of MLC is about 1 mm. Conclusions: It was suggested that it would be an effective index to continue IMRT safely in the future by practicing regular management upon setting an acceptable value by MLC positional accuracy test. This study was supported, in part, by a grant of the Japanese Society of Radiologocal Technology(JSRT).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85024825734&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85024825734&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.3612437

DO - 10.1118/1.3612437

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85024825734

VL - 38

SP - 3600

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 6

ER -