Vol 26, No 6 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-11-18

open access

Page views 6024
Article views/downloads 365
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

A strategy to determine off-axis dosimetric leaf gap using OSLD and EPID

Janahiraman Divyalakshmi1, K Mohamathu Rafic21, Ebenezer Suman Babu1, Timothy Peace Balasingh1, Amalan Sebastin1, Christopher J. Sujith1, L Jose Solomon Raj1
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(6):1019-1028.

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to investigate the dosimetric feasibility of using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLD) and an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) for central axis (CAX) and off-axis (OAX) dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) measurement.

Materials and methods: The Clinac 2100C/D linear accelerator equipped with Millennium-120 multileaf collimator (MLC) and EPID was utilized for this study. The DLG values at CAX and ± 1 cm OAX (1 cm superior and inferior to the CAX position, respectively along the plane perpendicular to MLC motion) were measured using OSLD (DLGOSLD) and validated using ionization chamber dosimetry (DLGICD). The two-dimensional DLG map (2D DLGEPID) was derived from the portal images of the DLG plan using a custom-developed software application that incorporated sliding aperture-specific correction factors.

Results: DLGOSLD and DLGICD, though measured with diverse setup in different media, showed similar variation both at CAX and ± 1 cm OAX positions. The corresponding DLGEPID values derived using aperture specific corrections were found to be in agreement with DLGOSLD and DLGICD. The 2D DLGEPID map provides insight into the varying patterns of the DLG with respect to each leaf pair at any position across the exposed field.

Conclusions: Commensurate results of DLGOSLD with DLGICD values have proven the efficacy of OSLD as an appropriate dosimeter for DLG measurement. The 2D DLGEPID map opens a potential pathway to accurately model the rounded-leaf end transmission with discrete leaf-specific DLG values for commissioning of a modern treatment planning system.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Boyer AL, Biggs PJ, Galvin J, Klein EE, LoSasso T, Low D. Basic applications of multileaf collimators. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Madison 2001.
  2. Orlandini LC, Betti M, Fulcheri C, et al. Dosimetric impact of different multileaf collimators on prostate intensity modulated treatment planning. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2015; 20(5): 358–364.
  3. Otto K. Volumetric modulated arc therapy: IMRT in a single gantry arc. Med Phys. 2008; 35(1): 310–317.
  4. Arnfield MR, Siebers JV, Kim JO, et al. A method for determining multileaf collimator transmission and scatter for dynamic intensity modulated radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2000; 27(10): 2231–2241.
  5. The Modern Technology of Radiation Oncology. Volume 3. In: Van Dyke J. ed. A Compendium for Medical Physicists and Radiation Oncologists. 1st ed. Medical Physics Publishing Corporation, Madison 2013.
  6. Szpala S, Cao F, Kohli K. On using the dosimetric leaf gap to model the rounded leaf ends in VMAT/RapidArc plans. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(2): 4484.
  7. Eclipse Algorithms_Reference Guide. Varian Medical Systems Inc, Palo Alto 2011.
  8. Shende R, Patel G. Validation of Dosimetric Leaf Gap (DLG) prior to its implementation in Treatment Planning System (TPS): TrueBeam™ millennium 120 leaf MLC. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2017; 22(6): 485–494.
  9. Balasingh ST, Singh IR, Rafic KM, et al. Determination of dosimetric leaf gap using amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device and its influence on intensity modulated radiotherapy dose delivery. J Med Phys. 2015; 40(3): 129–135.
  10. Esch AV, Bohsung J, Sorvari P, et al. Acceptance tests and quality control (QC) procedures for the clinical implementation of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) using inverse planning and the sliding window technique: experience from five radiotherapy departments. Radiother Oncol. 2002; 65(1): 53–70.
  11. Clark CH. IMRT clinical implementation: Prostate and pelvic node irradiation using Helios and a 120-leaf multileaf collimator. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2002; 3(4): 273.
  12. Mei X, Nygren I, Villarreal-Barajas JE. On the use of the MLC dosimetric leaf gap as a quality control tool for accurate dynamic IMRT delivery. Med Phys. 2011; 38(4): 2246–2255.
  13. LoSasso TJ. IMRT Delivery System QA. https://www.aapm.org/meetings/03SS/Presentations/Losasso.pdf.
  14. Lin CY, Shiau AC, Ji JH, et al. A simple method for determining dosimetric leaf gap with cross-field dose width for rounded leaf-end multileaf collimator systems. Radiat Oncol. 2018; 13(1): 222.
  15. Kim J, Han JS, Hsia AnT, et al. Relationship between dosimetric leaf gap and dose calculation errors for high definition multi-leaf collimators in radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2018; 5: 31–36.
  16. Amin MdN, Heaton R, Norrlinger B, et al. Small field electron beam dosimetry using MOSFET detector. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2010; 12(1): 3267.
  17. Kumar A, Mukherjee G, Yadav G, et al. Optimized point dose measurement: An effective tool for QA in intensity-modulated radiotherapy. J Med Phys. 2007; 32(4): 156–160.
  18. Mesbahi A, Thwaites D, Reilly A. Experimental and Monte Carlo evaluation of Eclipse treatment planning system for lung dose calculations. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2006; 11(3): 123–133.
  19. Bakhtiari M, Kumaraswamy L, Bailey DW, et al. Using an EPID for patient-specific VMAT quality assurance. Med Phys. 2011; 38(3): 1366–1373.
  20. Jursinic PA. Characterization of optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, OSLDs, for clinical dosimetric measurements. Med Phys. 2007; 34(12): 4594–4604.
  21. Smith L, Haque M, Morales J, et al. Radiation dose measurements of an on-board imager X-ray unit using optically-stimulated luminescence dosimeters. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015; 38(4): 665–669.
  22. Ponmalar R, Manickam R, Ganesh KM, et al. Dosimetric characterization of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter with therapeutic photon beams for use in clinical radiotherapy measurements. J Cancer Res Ther. 2017; 13(2): 304–312.
  23. Kairn T, Wilks R, Yu L, et al. In vivo monitoring of total skin electron dose using optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(1): 35–40.
  24. Viamonte A, da Rosa LAR, Buckley LA, et al. Radiotherapy dosimetry using a commercial OSL system. Med Phys. 2008; 35(4): 1261–1266.
  25. Kumaraswamy LK, Xu Z, Bailey DW, et al. Spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap and its impact on dose delivery. Med Phys. 2014; 41(11): 111711–21.
  26. Kumaraswamy LK, Xu Z, Bailey DW, et al. Evaluation of fluence-based dose delivery incorporating the spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG). J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17(1): 12–21.
  27. LoSasso T, Chui CS, Ling CC. Physical and dosimetric aspects of a multileaf collimation system used in the dynamic mode for implementing intensity modulated radiotherapy. Med Phys. 1998; 25(10): 1919–1927.
  28. Winkler P, Hefner A, Georg D. Dose-response characteristics of an amorphous silicon EPID. Med Phys. 2005; 32(10): 3095–3105.
  29. Xue J, Wang H, Barbee D, et al. A Practical Method to Optimize Quality Assurance Results of Arc Therapy Plans in Beam Modeling. J Med Phys. 2018; 43(2): 106–111.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy