Evaluation of fluence-based dose delivery incorporating the spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap (DLG).

The Eclipse treatment planning system uses a single dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value to retract all multileaf collimator leaf positions during dose calculation to model the rounded leaf ends. This study evaluates the dosimetric impact of the 2D variation of DLG on clinical treatment plans based on their degree of fluence modulation. In-house software was developed to retrospectively apply the 2D variation of DLG to 61 clinically treated VMAT plans, as well as to several test plans. The level of modulation of the VMAT cases were determined by calculating their modulation complexity score (MCS). Dose measurements were done using the MapCHECK device at a depth of 5.0 cm for plans with and without the 2D DLG correction. Measurements were compared against predicted dose planes from the TPS using absolute 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm gamma criteria for test plans and for VMAT cases, respectively. The gamma pass rate for the 2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm sweep test plans increased by 23.2%, 28.7%, and 26.0%, respectively, when the measurements were corrected with 2D variation of DLG. The clinical anal VMAT cases, which had very high MLC modulation, showed the most improvement. The majority of the improvement occurred for doses created by the 1.0 cm width leaves for both the test plans and the VMAT cases. The gamma pass rates for the highly modulated head and neck (H&N) cases, moderately modulated prostate and esophageal cases, and minimally modulated brain cases improved only slightly when corrected with 2D variation of DLG. This is because these cases did not employ the 1.0 cm width leaves for dose calculation and delivery. These data suggest that, at the very least, the TPS plans with highly modulated fluences created by the 1.0 cm fields require 2D DLG correction. Incorporating the 2D variation of DLG for the highly modulated clinical treatment plans improves their planar dose gamma pass rates, especially for fields employing the outer 1.0 cm width MLC leaves. This is because there are differences in DLG between the true DLG exhibited by the 1.0 cm width outer leaves and the constant DLG value modeled by the TPS for dose calculation.

Spatial variation of dosimetric leaf gap and its impact on dose delivery.

PURPOSE: During dose calculation, the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) retracts the multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf positions by half of the dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) value (measured at central axis) for all leaf positions in a dynamic MLC plan to accurately model the rounded leaf ends. The aim of this study is to map the variation of DLG along the travel path of each MLC leaf pair and quantify how this variation impacts delivered dose. METHODS: 6 MV DLG values were measured for all MLC leaf pairs in increments of 1.0 cm (from the line intersecting the CAX and perpendicular to MLC motion) to 13.0 cm off axis distance at dmax. The measurements were performed on two Varian linear accelerators, both employing the Millennium 120-leaf MLCs. The measurements were performed at several locations in the beam with both a Sun Nuclear MapCHECK device and a PTW pinpoint ion chamber. RESULTS: The measured DLGs for the middle 40 MLC leaf pairs (each 0.5 cm width) at positions along a line through the CAX and perpendicular to MLC leaf travel direction were very similar, varying maximally by only 0.2 mm. The outer 20 MLC leaf pairs (each 1.0 cm width) have much lower DLG values, about 0.3-0.5 mm lower than the central MLC leaf pair, at their respective central line position. Overall, the mean and the maximum variation between the 0.5 cm width leaves and the 1.0 cm width leaf pairs are 0.32 and 0.65 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The spatial variation in DLG is caused by the variation of intraleaf transmission through MLC leaves. Fluences centered on the CAX would not be affected since DLG does not vary; but any fluences residing significantly off axis with narrow sweeping leaves may exhibit significant dose differences. This is due to the fact that there are differences in DLG between the true DLG exhibited by the 1.0 cm width outer leaves and the constant DLG value utilized by the TPS for dose calculation. Since there are large differences in DLG between the 0.5 cm width leaf pairs and 1.0 cm width leaf pairs, there is a need to correct the TPS plans, especially those with high modulation (narrow dynamic MLC gap), with 2D variation of DLG.

Potential increase in biological effectiveness from field timing optimization for stereotactic body radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a radiotherapy technique which uses high dose fractions with multiple coplanar and noncoplanar beams. Due to the large fractional doses, treatments are typically protracted and there are more fields than in conventional radiation treatment schemes. The effect of temporal optimization on the biological effectiveness of SBRT is not well established. METHODS: In a cohort of actual SBRT patient treatments, the Lea-Catcheside protraction factor (G-value) was used to determine the optimal (Δ) and the least favorable (V) field. An actual field timing delivered in the clinic was included (C) for comparison. The lethal potential lethal (LPL) model was used to quantify the difference in survival fractions. Published data from three cell lines for non-small cell lung cancers: H460, H660, and H157 were used to acquire the parameters needed by the LPL model. The results are expressed as the ratios (V:Δ)(N) and (C:Δ)(N), where N is the number fractions in the SBRT protocols and Δ, V, and C are the survival fractions calculated from the corresponding temporal patterns. RESULTS: The results indicate that variability in the dose rate between fields does impact the optimization results. This dependence on dose rate, however, is small compared to the impact from the variability in doses between fields. The optimized field arrangements resembled previous studies, that maximization of cell kill is achieved by orienting the fields in a Δ shape sequence, where the fields with greatest dose are positioned in the center. Minimization of cell kill was achieved with a V-shaped orientation. Smallest dose fields were positioned centrally, and higher dose fields were placed in the beginning and end of the fraction. The survival fraction ratios calculated using the LPL demonstrated that regardless of the cell type the Δ shape had lower cell survival fractions compared to both the clinical example (C) and the V arrangement. For H460, with T(1/2) = 0.25 h, an average ratio of (C:Δ)(5)=13.9, suggesting the Δ pattern is approximately 14 times more effective than the clinical plan, after 5 fractions. CONCLUSIONS: Rearranging field timing for a SBRT treatment so that maximal dose is deposited in the central fields of treatment may optimize cell kill and potentially affect overall treatment outcome.