The Dosimetric and Delivery Advantages of a New 160-leaf MLC

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to conduct a measurement and treatment planning study on the dosimetric and delivery advantages of a new 160-leaf multileaf collimator (MLC). Recently, a new 160-leaf multileaf collimator (Siemens 160 MLC™) was introduced. The 160-MLC is a single focused design that consists of 160-leafs (80 pairs), each 95 mm thick with a projected leaf width of 5 mm at the machine isocenter. Compared to its double focused predecessors, the 82-leaf MLC (Siemens OPTIVIEW™ MLC) and 58-leaf MLC (Siemens 3-D MLC™), the 160-MLC has leaf widths of half the size. The most notable difference is the new slanted leaf design that replaced the tongue and groove system and allows for complete interdigitation. A systematic study that compared the dosimetric and delivery differences among the 160-MLC, 58-MLC, and divergent Cerrobend blocks was performed. Dosimetric conformity for each collimator type was determined by conforming each to circular targets of various diameters. The effective penumbra for each collimator type was calculated by conforming each, at various collimator angles, to a square stationary target. The quality of 3D conformal radiotherapy treatment (3D-CRT) plans and the quality intensity modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) plans were respectively compared with each collimator type. The 160-MLC was found to have improved dosimetric conformity over the 58-MLC. The divergent Cerrobend block showed marginal dosimetric conformity improvement over the 160-LMC. Overall, the 160-MLC had a 45% and 29% reduction in the 20/80 and 30/90 effective penumbra over the 58-MLC, respectively, while exhibiting only a slightly larger effective penumbra over the divergent Cerrobend block. Comparing 3D-CRT plans generated for small lesions of the head and neck, the V100 for the PTV of the plans generated with the Cerrobend blocks, the 58-MLC, and the 160-MLC were 97.78%, 92.51%, and 99.18%, respectively, while with regards to the OARs, the three produced similar DVHs. IMRT plans generated with the 160-MLC were found to significantly reduce the total delivered monitor units by up to 14.7% and the number of segments by as much as 10.7% compared to the 58-MLC. The average delivery time for the direct aperture optimized (DAO) IMRT plans generated with the 160-MLC was approximately 5 minutes. Overall, compared to the 58-MLC, the new 160-MLC was found to improve dosimetric conformity and IMRT delivery efficiency.

Keywords

Multileaf collimator IMRT delivery Dose conformity.

References

Huq

M. S.

Das

I. J.

Steinberg

Galvin

J. M.

A dosimetric comparison of various multileaf collimators. Phys Med Biol 47, N159–70 (2002).

Sontag

M. R.

Steinberg

T. H.

Performance and beam characteristics of the Siemens Primus linear accelerator. Med Phys 26, 734–736 (1999).

Das

I. J.

Desobry

G. E.

McNeeley

S. W.

Cheng

E. C.

Schultheiss

T. E.

Beam characteristics of a retrofitted double-focused multileaf collimator. Med Phys 25, 1676–1684 (1998).

Bayouth

J. E.

Siemens multileaf collimator characterization and quality assurance approaches for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71, S93–7 (2008).

Tacke

M. B.

Nill

Haring

Oelfke

6 MV dosimetric characterization of the 160 MLC, the new Siemens multileaf collimator. Med Phys 35, 1634–1642 (2008).

Lopes

M. C.

Chaves

Capela

M. A.

dosimetric calibration method for a double-focused multileaf collimator. Med Phys 34, 3473–3474 (2007).

Topolnjak

van der Heide

U. A.

An analytical approach for optimizing the leaf design of a multi-leaf collimator in a linear accelerator. Phys Med Biol 53, 3007–3021 (2008).

Burmeister

McDermott

P. N.

Bossenberger

Ben-Josef

Levin

Forman

J. D.

Effect of MLC leaf width on the planning and delivery of SMLC IMRT using the CORVUS inverse treatment planning system. Med Phys 31, 3187–3193 (2004).

Fiveash

J. B.

Murshed

Duan

Hyatt

Caranto

Bonner

J. A.

Popple

R. A.

Effect of multileaf collimator leaf width on physical dose distributions in the treatment of CNS and head and neck neoplasms with intensity modulated radiation therapy. Med Phys 29, 1116–1119 (2002).

10.

Galvin

J. M.

Han

Cohen

R. A.

Comparison of multileafcollimator and alloy-block field shaping. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40, 721–731 (1998).

11.

Jin

J. Y.

Yin

F. F.

Ryu

Ajlouni

Kim

J. H.

Dosimetric study using different leaf-width MLCs for treatment planning of dynamic conformal arcs and intensity-modulated radiosurgery. Med Phys 32, 405–411 (2005).

12.

Kubo

H. D.

Wilder

R. B.

Pappas

C. T.

Impact of collimator leaf width on stereotactic radiosurgery and 3D conformal radiotherapy treatment plans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 44, 937–945 (1999).

13.

Monk

J. E.

Perks

J. R.

Doughty

Plowman

P. N.

Comparison of a micro-multileaf collimator with a 5-mm-leaf-width collimator for intracranial stereotactic radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 57, 1443–1449 (2003).

14.

Frazier

Yan

Wong

Vicini

Matter

Joyce

Martinez

Effects of treatment setup variation on beam's eye view dosimetry for radiation therapy using the multileaf collimator vs. the cerrobend block. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33, 1247–1256 (1995).

15.

LoSasso

Kutcher

G. J.

Multileaf collimation versus alloy blocks: Analysis of geometric accuracy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 32, 499–506 (1995).

16.

Adams

E. J.

Cosgrove

V. P.

Shepherd

S. F.

Warrington

A. P.

Bedford

J. L.

Mubata

C. D.

Bidmead

A. M.

Brada

Comparison of a multi-leaf collimator with conformal blocks for the delivery of stereotactically guided conformal radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 51, 205–209 (1999).

17.

Bortfeld

Oelfke

Nill

What is the optimum leaf width of a multileaf collimator? Med Phys 27, 2494–2502 (2000).

18.

Nill

Tucking

Munter

M. W.

Oelfke

Intensity modulated radiation therapy with multileaf collimators of different leaf widths: A comparison of achievable dose distributions. Radiother Oncol 75, 106–111 (2005).

19.

Shaw

Kline

Gillin

Souhami

Hirschfeld

Dinapoli

Martin

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group: Radiosurgery quality assurance guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 27, 1231–1239 (1993).

20.

Knoos

Kristensen

Nilsson

Volumetric and dosimetric evaluation of radiation treatment plans: Radiation conformity index. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 42, 1169–1176 (1998).

21.

Paddick

A simple scoring ratio to index the conformity of radiosurgical treatment plans. Technical note. J Neurosurg 93 Suppl 3, 219–222 (2000).

22.

Frazier

Wong

Vicini

Taylor

Matter

Martinez

Yan

Dosimetric evaluation of the conformation of the multileaf collimator to irregularly shaped fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33, 1229–1238 (1995).

23.

Galvin

J. M.

Smith

A. R.

Lally

Characterization of a multileaf collimator system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 25, 181–192 (1993).

24.

Shepard

D. M.

Earl

M. A.

X. A.

Naqvi

Direct aperture optimization: A turnkey solution for step-and-shoot IMRT. Med Phys 29, 1007–1018 (2002).