TY - JOUR
T1 - Universal evaluation of MLC models in treatment planning systems based on a common set of dynamic tests
AU - Saez, Jordi
AU - Bar-Deroma, Raquel
AU - Bogaert, Evelien
AU - Cayez, Romain
AU - Chow, Tom
AU - Clark, Catharine H.
AU - Esposito, Marco
AU - Feygelman, Vladimir
AU - Monti, Angelo F.
AU - Garcia-Miguel, Julia
AU - Gershkevitsh, Eduard
AU - Goossens, Jo
AU - Herrero, Carmen
AU - Hussein, Mohammad
AU - Khamphan, Catherine
AU - Kierkels, Roel G.J.
AU - Lechner, Wolfgang
AU - Lemire, Matthieu
AU - Nevelsky, Alexander
AU - Nguyen, Daniel
AU - Paganini, Lucia
AU - Pasler, Marlies
AU - Fernando Pérez Azorín, José
AU - Ramos Garcia, Luis Isaac
AU - Russo, Serenella
AU - Shakeshaft, John
AU - Vieillevigne, Laure
AU - Hernandez, Victor
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of characterising MLCs and MLC models implemented in TPSs using a common set of dynamic beams. Materials and methods: A set of tests containing synchronous (SG) and asynchronous sweeping gaps (aSG) was distributed among twenty-five participating centres. Doses were measured with a Farmer-type ion chamber and computed in TPSs, which provided a dosimetric characterisation of the leaf tip, tongue-and-groove, and MLC transmission of each MLC, as well as an assessment of the MLC model in each TPS. Five MLC types and four TPSs were evaluated, covering the most frequent combinations used in radiotherapy departments. Results: Measured differences within each MLC type were minimal, while large differences were found between MLC models implemented in clinical TPSs. This resulted in some concerning discrepancies, especially for the HD120 and Agility MLCs, for which differences between measured and calculated doses for some MLC-TPS combinations exceeded 10%. These large differences were particularly evident for small gap sizes (5 and 10 mm), as well as for larger gaps in the presence of tongue-and-groove effects. A much better agreement was found for the Millennium120 and Halcyon MLCs, differences being within ± 5% and ± 2.5%, respectively. Conclusions: The feasibility of using a common set of tests to assess MLC models in TPSs was demonstrated. Measurements within MLC types were very similar, but TPS dose calculations showed large variations. Standardisation of the MLC configuration in TPSs is necessary. The proposed procedure can be readily applied in radiotherapy departments and can be a valuable tool in IMRT and credentialing audits.
AB - Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of characterising MLCs and MLC models implemented in TPSs using a common set of dynamic beams. Materials and methods: A set of tests containing synchronous (SG) and asynchronous sweeping gaps (aSG) was distributed among twenty-five participating centres. Doses were measured with a Farmer-type ion chamber and computed in TPSs, which provided a dosimetric characterisation of the leaf tip, tongue-and-groove, and MLC transmission of each MLC, as well as an assessment of the MLC model in each TPS. Five MLC types and four TPSs were evaluated, covering the most frequent combinations used in radiotherapy departments. Results: Measured differences within each MLC type were minimal, while large differences were found between MLC models implemented in clinical TPSs. This resulted in some concerning discrepancies, especially for the HD120 and Agility MLCs, for which differences between measured and calculated doses for some MLC-TPS combinations exceeded 10%. These large differences were particularly evident for small gap sizes (5 and 10 mm), as well as for larger gaps in the presence of tongue-and-groove effects. A much better agreement was found for the Millennium120 and Halcyon MLCs, differences being within ± 5% and ± 2.5%, respectively. Conclusions: The feasibility of using a common set of tests to assess MLC models in TPSs was demonstrated. Measurements within MLC types were very similar, but TPS dose calculations showed large variations. Standardisation of the MLC configuration in TPSs is necessary. The proposed procedure can be readily applied in radiotherapy departments and can be a valuable tool in IMRT and credentialing audits.
KW - Audits
KW - Comissioning
KW - IMRT
KW - MLC
KW - Standardization
KW - VMAT
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85164697857&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109775
DO - 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109775
M3 - Article
C2 - 37385376
AN - SCOPUS:85164697857
SN - 0167-8140
VL - 186
JO - Radiotherapy and Oncology
JF - Radiotherapy and Oncology
M1 - 109775
ER -