Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT
Abstract Background and purpose The study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators. Methods...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Radiation Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02097-0 |
| _version_ | 1828747108337844224 |
|---|---|
| author | Xiutong Lin Tao Sun Xiao Liu Guifang Zhang Yong Yin |
| author_facet | Xiutong Lin Tao Sun Xiao Liu Guifang Zhang Yong Yin |
| author_sort | Xiutong Lin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background and purpose The study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators. Methods A total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed. Results The average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles. Conclusions Compared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:36:45Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0da880580ccf425a96ff16ccdad66780 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-717X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-14T04:36:45Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Radiation Oncology |
| spelling | doaj.art-0da880580ccf425a96ff16ccdad667802022-12-22T02:11:49ZengBMCRadiation Oncology1748-717X2022-07-0117111110.1186/s13014-022-02097-0Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMATXiutong Lin0Tao Sun1Xiao Liu2Guifang Zhang3Yong Yin4Department of Radiation Physics and Technology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical SciencesDepartment of Radiation Physics and Technology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical SciencesDepartment of Radiation Physics and Technology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical SciencesDepartment of Radiation Physics and Technology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical SciencesDepartment of Radiation Physics and Technology, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical SciencesAbstract Background and purpose The study evaluated the differences in leaf positioning deviations by the log files of three advanced accelerators with two delivery techniques, and established specific assessment parameters of leaf positioning deviations for different types of accelerators. Methods A total of 420 treatment plans with 5 consecutive treatment log files were collected from the Trilogy, TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators. Millennium MLC was equipped on the Trilogy and TrueBeam accelerators. A jawless design and dual-layer MLC were adopted on the Halcyon accelerator. 70 IMRT and 70 VMAT plans were selected randomly on each accelerator. The treatment sites of all plans included head and neck, chest, breast, pelvis and other sites. The parsing tasks for 2100 log files were proceeded by SunCheck software from Sun Nuclear Corporation. The maximum leaf root mean square (RMS) errors, 95th percentile errors and percentages of different leaf positioning errors were statistically analyzed. The correlations between these evaluation parameters and accelerator performance parameters (maximum leaf speed, mean leaf speed, gantry and arc angle) were analyzed. Results The average maximum leaf RMS errors of the Trilogy in the IMRT and VMAT plans were 0.44 ± 0.09 mm and 0.79 ± 0.07 mm, respectively, which were higher than the TrueBeam's 0.03 ± 0.01 mm, 0.03 ± 0.01 mm and the Halcyon's 0.05 ± 0.01 mm, 0.07 ± 0.01 mm. Similar data results were shown in the 95th percentile error. The maximum leaf RMS errors were strongly correlated with the 95th percentile errors (Pearson index > 0.5). The leaf positioning deviations in VMAT were higher than those in IMRT for all accelerators. In TrueBeam and Halcyon, leaf position errors above 1 mm were not found in IMRT and VMAT plans. The main influencing factor of leaf positioning deviation was the leaf speed, which has no strong correlation with gantry and arc angles. Conclusions Compared with the quality assurance guidelines, the MLC positioning deviations tolerances of the three accelerators should be tightened. For both IMRT and VMAT techniques, the 95th percentile error and the maximum RMS error are suggested to be tightened to 1.5 and 1 mm respectively for the Trilogy accelerator. In TrueBeam and Halcyon accelerators, the 95th percentile error and maximum RMS error of 1 and 0.5 mm, respectively, are considered appropriate.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02097-0MLC positioning errorTrajectory log fileDynalogIMRTVMATTrilogy |
| spellingShingle | Xiutong Lin Tao Sun Xiao Liu Guifang Zhang Yong Yin Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT Radiation Oncology MLC positioning error Trajectory log file Dynalog IMRT VMAT Trilogy |
| title | Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT |
| title_full | Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT |
| title_short | Comparison of MLC positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with IMRT and VMAT |
| title_sort | comparison of mlc positioning deviations using log files and establishment of specific assessment parameters for different accelerators with imrt and vmat |
| topic | MLC positioning error Trajectory log file Dynalog IMRT VMAT Trilogy |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-022-02097-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT xiutonglin comparisonofmlcpositioningdeviationsusinglogfilesandestablishmentofspecificassessmentparametersfordifferentacceleratorswithimrtandvmat AT taosun comparisonofmlcpositioningdeviationsusinglogfilesandestablishmentofspecificassessmentparametersfordifferentacceleratorswithimrtandvmat AT xiaoliu comparisonofmlcpositioningdeviationsusinglogfilesandestablishmentofspecificassessmentparametersfordifferentacceleratorswithimrtandvmat AT guifangzhang comparisonofmlcpositioningdeviationsusinglogfilesandestablishmentofspecificassessmentparametersfordifferentacceleratorswithimrtandvmat AT yongyin comparisonofmlcpositioningdeviationsusinglogfilesandestablishmentofspecificassessmentparametersfordifferentacceleratorswithimrtandvmat |