Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of Minimum Segment Width on Gamma Passing Rate Considering MLC Position Error for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

  • Published:
Journal of the Korean Physical Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 07 May 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) requires higher multi-leaf collimator (MLC) position accuracy compared with conventional radiotherapy to reduce dose delivery error because various small segments are used to create complex dose distributions in VMAT plans. Despite the many reports on the effect of MLC position error on dosimetric quality assurance (DQA), few have addressed the correlation between the minimum segment width (MSW) and the gamma passing rate considering the MLC position error. We analyzed this correlation for VMAT plans using ArcCheck. VMAT plans with three different MSWs (5, 10, and 15 mm) were created for each of the seven prostate cancer cases using Monaco 5.11. With the introduced systematic errors of +1.0, +0.5, 0.0, −0.5, and −1.0 mm in the MLC leaf bank, the dose distributions were measured using ArcCheck. The planned and measured dose distributions were compared using gamma analysis with the Sun Nuclear Corporation (SNC) Patient software. The average passing rates and standard deviations were 73.4% ± 3.8%, 92.9% ± 1.9%, 96.9% ± 1.3%, 90.9% ± 2.9%, and 72.7% ± 6.7% for MLC position errors of −1.0, −0.5, 0.0, +0.5, and +1.0 mm, respectively. The gamma passing rate was linearly correlated with the MSW, as the R2 value was greater than 0.96 for all MLC position errors, except 0.0 mm. The slope increased with increasing the MLC position error in all directions. For an MLC position error of −1.0 mm, the average differences in the gamma passing rates between MSWs of 10 and 15 mm with respect to an MSW of 5 mm were 3.9% ± 4.0% and 7.6% ± 3.3%, respectively, whereas the values were 8.6% ± 6.1% and 12.9% ± 3.3%, respectively, for an MLC position error of +1.0 mm. A correlation between the DQA results considering the MLC leaf bank errors and the MSW of the VMAT plans was established. The use of higher MSWs in VMAT plans was found to be less affected by the MLC position errors. This indicates that the lower the MSW, the more important the DQA before treatment. This study determines the maximum value of MSW corresponding to which the effect of MLC leaf bank error is minimum, thus providing a guidance for the clinical implementation of VMAT.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 07 May 2019

    Change author name Wan W<Emphasis Type="SmallCaps">an</Emphasis> J<Emphasis Type="SmallCaps">eon</Emphasis> to Wan <Emphasis Type="SmallCaps">Jeon</Emphasis>.

References

  1. B. Cho, Radiation Oncol. J. 36, 1 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. C. X. Yu, Phys. Med. Biol. 40, 5 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. Otto, Med.Phys. 35, 1 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Hussein, P. Rowshanfarzad, M. A. Ebert, A. Nisbet and C. H. Clark, Radiotherapy Oncol. 109, 3 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. H. Zhen, B. E. Nelms and W. A. Tom, Med. Phys. 38, 10 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Oliver et al., Radiotherapy Oncol. 97, 3 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Rangel and P. Dunscombe, Med. Phys. 36, 7 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. Yan et al., J. Appl. Clinical Med. Phys. 10, 1 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. G. Heilemann, B. Poppe and W. Laub, Med. Phys. 40, 3 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Q. Diot, B. Kavanagh, R. Timmerman and M. Miften, Med. Phys. 39, 1 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. I. J. Das, G. X. Ding and A. Ahnesj, Med. Phys. 35, 1, (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. A. Oh, J. W. Yea, R. Lee, H. B. Park and S. K. Kim, Prog. Med. Phys. 25, 4 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  13. K. C. Younge et al., Med. Phys. 39, 11 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. Christophides, A. Davies and M. Fleckney, Phys. Med. Biol. 61, 23 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. I. Sumida, H. Yamaguchi, H. Kizaki, J. Radiation Res. 53, 5 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. C. Sini, S. Broggi, C. Fiorino, G. M. Cattaneo and R. Calandrino, Physica Medica 31, 4 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J. Van Dyk, R. B. Barnett, J. E. Cygler and P. C. Shragge, Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 26, 2 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. A. K. Templeton, J. C. H. Chu and J. V. Turian, J. Appl. Clinical Med. Phys. 16, 1 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. K. Nithiyanantham, G. K. Mani, V. Subramani, Rep. Practical Oncol. Radiotherapy 19, 5 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Y. Wang et al., J. Appl. Clinical Med. Phys. 19, 5 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. S. Arumugam, A. Xing, G. Goozee and L. Holloway, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 444, 1 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Dongnam Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences (DIRAMS) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 50598-2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jin Young Kim or Tae-Ik Ro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moon, Y.M., Bae, S.I., Choi, C.W. et al. Effect of Minimum Segment Width on Gamma Passing Rate Considering MLC Position Error for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy. J. Korean Phys. Soc. 74, 724–730 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.74.724

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.74.724

Keywords

Navigation