Accurate multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positioning plays an essential role in the effective implementation of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). This work evaluates the sensitivity of current patient‐specific IMRT quality assurance (QA) procedures to minor MLC leaf positioning errors. Random errors of up to 2 mm and systematic errors of ±1mm and ±2mm in MLC leaf positions were introduced into 8 clinical IMRT patient plans (totaling 53 fields). Planar dose distributions calculated with modified plans were compared to dose distributions measured with both radiochromic films and a diode matrix. The agreement between calculation and measurement was evaluated using both absolute distance‐to‐agreement (DTA) analysis and γ index with 2%/2mm and 3%/3mm criteria. It was found that both the radiochromic film and the diode matrix could only detect systematic errors on the order of 2 mm or above. The diode array had larger sensitivity than film due to its excellent detector response (such as small variation, linear response, etc.). No difference was found between DTA analysis and γ index in terms of the sensitivity to MLC positioning errors. Higher sensitivity was observed with 2%/2mm than with 3%/3mm in general. When using the diode array and 2%/2mm criterion, the IMRT QA procedure showed strongest sensitivity to MLC position errors and, at the same time, achieved clinically acceptable passing rates. More accurate dose calculation and measurement would further enhance the sensitivity of patient‐specific IMRT QA to MLC positioning errors. However, considering the significant dosimetric effect such MLC errors could cause, patient‐specific IMRT QA should be combined with a periodic MLC QA program in order to guarantee the accuracy of IMRT delivery.PACS numbers: 87.50.Gi, 87.52.Df, 87.52.Px, 87.53.Dq, 87.53.Tf, 87.53.Kn, 87.56.Fc

The SRS MapCHECK â , a recently developed patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) tool for end-to-end testing of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), was evaluated in a multi-institution study and compared with radiochromic film. Methods: The SRS MapCHECK was used to collect data on 84 SBRT or SRS PSQA plans/fields at nine institutions on treatment delivery devices (TDD) manufactured by Varian and Elekta. PSQA plans from five different treatment planning software (TPS) were selected and executed on TDDs operating at beam energies of 6 and 10 MV with and without a flattening filter. The patient plans were all VMAT except for ten conformal arc therapy fields. The plans were selected to encompass a range of size and tumor sites including brain, lung, spine, abdomen, ear, pancreas, and liver. Corresponding radiochromic film data was acquired in 50 plans/fields. Results were evaluated using gamma analysis with absolute dose criterion of 3% global dose-difference (DD) and 1 mm distanceto-agreement (DTA). Results: The mean 3% DD/1 mm DTA Gamma pass rate of SRS MapCHECK in comparison to film was 95.9%, whereas comparison of SRS MapCHECK to the treatment planning software was 94.7%. 80% of SRS MapCHECK comparisons against film exceed 95% pass rate, and about 30% of SRS MapCHECK comparisons against film exceed 99% pass rate. To maintain good agreement between SRS MapCHECK and film or TPS, authors recommend avoiding plans with a modified modulation complexity score (MMCS) <0.1 arbitrary units (a.u.). In the examples presented, this coincides with avoiding plans with a mu/dose limit of >3 µ/cGy. Conclusions: Stereotactic radiosurgery MapCHECK has been validated for PSQA for a variety of clinical SRS/SBRT plans in a wide range of treatment delivery conditions. The SRS MapCHECK comparison with film demonstrates near-equivalence for analysis of patient-specific QA deliveries comprised of small field measurements.

Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), most notably characterized by infantile hypotonia, short stature and morbid obesity, results from deficiencies in multiple genes that are subject to genomic imprinting. The usefulness of current mouse models of PWS has been limited by postnatal lethality in affected mice. Here, we report the survival of the PWS-imprinting center (IC) deletion mice on a variety of strain backgrounds. Expression analyses of the genes affected in the PWS region suggest that while there is low-level expression from both parental alleles in PWS-IC deletion pups, this expression does not explain their survival on certain strain backgrounds. Rather, the data provide evidence for strain-specific modifier genes that support the survival of PWS-IC deletion mice.

Purpose: Accurate modeling of beam profiles is important for precise treatment planning dosimetry. Calculated beam profiles need to precisely replicate profiles measured during machine commissioning. Finite detector size introduces perturbations into the measured profiles, which, in turn, impact the resulting modeled profiles. The authors investigate a method for extracting the unperturbed beam profiles from those measured during linear accelerator commissioning. Methods: In-plane and cross-plane data were collected for an Elekta Synergy linac at 6 MV using ionization chambers of volume 0.01, 0.04, 0.13, and 0.65 cm 3 and a diode of surface area 0.64 mm 2 . The detectors were orientated with the stem perpendicular to the beam and pointing away from the gantry. Profiles were measured for a 10ϫ 10 cm 2 field at depths ranging from 0.8 to 25.0 cm and SSDs from 90 to 110 cm. Shaping parameters of a Gaussian response function were obtained relative to the Edge detector. The Gaussian function was deconvolved from the measured ionization chamber data. The Edge detector profile was taken as an approximation to the true profile, to which deconvolved data were compared. Data were also collected with CC13 and Edge detectors for additional fields and energies on an Elekta Synergy, Varian Trilogy, and Siemens Oncor linear accelerator and response functions obtained. Response functions were compared as a function of depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. Variations in the shaping parameter were introduced and the effect on the resulting deconvolution profiles assessed. Results: Up to 10% setup dependence in the Gaussian shaping parameter occurred, for each detector for a particular plane. This translated to less than a Ϯ0.7 mm variation in the 80%-20% penumbral width. For large volume ionization chambers such as the FC65 Farmer type, where the cavity length to diameter ratio is far from 1, the scan direction produced up to a 40% difference in the shaping parameter between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. This is primarily due to the directional difference in penumbral width measured by the FC65 chamber, which can more than double in profiles obtained with the detector stem parallel compared to perpendicular to the scan direction. For the more symmetric CC13 chamber the variation was only 3% between in-plane and cross-plane measurements. Conclusions:The authors have shown that the detector response varies with detector type, depth, SSD, and detector scan direction. In-plane vs cross-plane scanning can require calculation of a direction dependent response function. The effect of a 10% overall variation in the response function, for an ionization chamber, translates to a small deviation in the penumbra from that of the Edge detector measured profile when deconvolved. Due to the uncertainties introduced by deconvolution the Edge detector would be preferable in obtaining an approximation of the true profile, particularly for field sizes where the energy dependence of the diode can be neglected. However, an averaged respons...