| dc.description.abstract | Accuracy and precision of leaf positioning in multileaf collimators (MLCs) are significant factors for the accuracy of IMRT treatments. This study aimed to investigate the accuracy and repeatability of the MLC leaf positioning via the DAVID in vivo dosimetric system for dynamic and static MLC systems. The DAVID system was designed as multiwire transmission ionization chamber which is placed in accessory holder of linear accelerators. Each wire of DAVID system corresponds to a MLC leaf‐pair to verify the leaf positioning accuracy during IMRT treatment and QA. In this study, verifications of IMRT plans of five head and neck (H&N) and five prostate patients treated in a Varian DHX linear accelerator with 80‐leaf MLC were performed using DAVID system. Before DAVID‐based dosimetry, Electronics Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and PTW 2D ARRAY dosimetry system were used for 2D verification of each plan. The measurements taken by DAVID system in the first day of the treatments were used as reference for the following measurements taken over the next four weeks. The deviations in leaf positioning were evaluated by “Total Deviation (TD)” parameter calculated by DAVID software. The delivered IMRT plans were originally prepared using dynamic MLC method. The same plans were subsequently calculated based on static MLC method with three different intensity levels of five (IL5), 10 (IL10) and 20 (IL20) in order to compare the performances of MLC leaf positioning repeatability for dynamic and static IMRT plans. The leaf positioning accuracy is also evaluated by analyzing DynaLog files based on error histograms and root mean square (RMS) errors of leaf pairs’ positions. Moreover, a correlation analysis between simultaneously taken DAVID and EPID measurements and DynaLog file recordings was subsequently performed. In the analysis of DAVID outputs, the overall deviations of dynamic MLC‐based IMRT calculated from the deviations of the four weeks were found as 0.55%±0.57% and 1.48%±0.57% for prostate and H&N patients, respectively. The prostate IMRT plans based on static MLC method had the overall deviations of 1.23%±0.69%, 3.07%±1.07%, and 3.13%±1.29% for intensity levels of IL5, IL10, and IL20, respectively. Moreover, the overall deviations for H&N patients were found as 1.87%±0.86%, 3.11%±1.24%, and 2.78%±1.31% for the static MLC‐based IMRT plans with intensity levels of IL5, IL10 and IL20, respectively. Similar with the DAVID results, the error rates in DynaLog files showed upward movement comparing the dynamic IMRT with static IMRT with high intensity levels. In respect to positioning errors higher than 0.005 cm, static prostate IMRT plans with intensity levels of IL10 and IL20 had 1.5 and 2.6 times higher error ratios than dynamic prostate IMRT plans, respectively, while these values stepped up to 8.4 and 12.0 for H&N cases. On the other hand, according to the leaf pair readings, reconstructed dose values from DynaLog files had significant correlation (r=0.80) with DAVID and EPID readings while a stronger relationship (r=0.98) was found between the two dosimetric systems. The correlation coefficients for deviations from reference plan readings were found in the interval of −0.21–0.16 for all three systems. The dynamic MLC method showed higher performance in repeatability of leaf positioning than static MLC methods with higher intensity levels even though the deviations in the MLC leaf positioning were found to be under the acceptance threshold for all MLC methods. The high intensity levels increased the positioning deviations along with the delivery complexity of the static MLC‐based IMRT plans. Moreover, DAVID and EPID readings and DynaLog recordings showed mutually strong correlation, while no significant relationship was found between deviations from reference values., PACS number(s): 87.56.J‐ | |
