In all commercially available multileaf collimators, a 'tongue-and-groove'--or similar--construction is used for reduction of leakage radiation between adjacent leaves. These constructions can cause serious underdosages in intensity-modulated photon beams. A method for leaf trajectory calculation for dynamic multileaf collimation, which fully avoids these underdosage effects, is presented. The method is based on pairwise synchronizations of trajectories of adjacent leaf pairs, such that the delivered beam intensity in each 'tongue-and-groove' region is always equal to the smallest of the two prescribed intensities for the two corresponding leaf pairs. The effectiveness of the method has been proven for a large number of intensity-modulated fields, using the dynamic multileaf collimation mode of our MM50 Racetrack Microtron. Compared to dynamic multileaf collimation without synchronization, beam-on times are always equal or longer. For the cases that we studied, the beam-on time was typically increased by 5 to 15%.
An algorithm for the calculation of the required leaf trajectories to generate optimized intensity modulated beam profiles by means of dynamic multileaf collimation is presented. This algorithm iteratively accounts for leaf transmission and collimator scatter and fully avoids tongue-and-groove underdosage effects. Tests on a large number of intensity modulated fields show that only a limited number of iterations, generally less than 10, are necessary to minimize the differences between optimized and realized fluence profiles. To assess the accuracy of the algorithm in combination with the dose calculation algorithm of the Cadplan 3D treatment planning system, predicted absolute dose distributions for optimized fluence profiles were compared with dose distributions measured on the MM50 Racetrack Microtron and resulting from the calculated leaf trajectories. Both theoretical and clinical cases yield an agreement within 2%, or within 2 mm in regions with a high dose gradient, showing that the accuracy is adequate for clinical application.
This study presents data for verification of the iPlan RT Monte Carlo (MC) dose algorithm (BrainLAB, Feldkirchen, Germany). MC calculations were compared with pencil beam (PB) calculations and verification measurements in phantoms with lung-equivalent material, air cavities or bone-equivalent material to mimic head and neck and thorax and in an Alderson anthropomorphic phantom. Dosimetric accuracy of MC for the micro-multileaf collimator (MLC) simulation was tested in a homogeneous phantom. All measurements were performed using an ionization chamber and Kodak EDR2 films with Novalis 6 MV photon beams. Dose distributions measured with film and calculated with MC in the homogeneous phantom are in excellent agreement for oval, C and squiggle-shaped fields and for a clinical IMRT plan. For a field with completely closed MLC, MC is much closer to the experimental result than the PB calculations. For fields larger than the dimensions of the inhomogeneities the MC calculations show excellent agreement (within 3%/1 mm) with the experimental data. MC calculations in the anthropomorphic phantom show good agreement with measurements for conformal beam plans and reasonable agreement for dynamic conformal arc and IMRT plans. For 6 head and neck and 15 lung patients a comparison of the MC plan with the PB plan was performed. Our results demonstrate that MC is able to accurately predict the dose in the presence of inhomogeneities typical for head and neck and thorax regions with reasonable calculation times (5-20 min). Lateral electron transport was well reproduced in MC calculations. We are planning to implement MC calculations for head and neck and lung cancer patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.