Beam Modeling in Commercial Treatment Planning System for IMRT and VMAT performance with an Elekta MLCI 2 Multileaf Collimator

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department Of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, University Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco.

2 Part Consult Company, Casablanca, Morocco.

3 Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, Mohammed 1st University, Oujda, Morocco.

4 Laboratory of biochemistry, Ibn Rochd University, Hospital Center, Casablanca, Morocco

5 Department of Radiotherapy, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.


Introduction: Linear accelerator multileaf collimator (MLC) requires to be tested with best possible quality assurance tools and accordingly treatment planning system input with the data for appropriate modeling of MLC. Dose calculation is affected due to MLC modeling, especially when using the high standard treatment techniques like intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric modulation arc therapy (VMAT).
Material and Methods: An MLCI 2 (Elekta Inc.) multileaf collimator is verified by 2D detector matrix (IBA dosimetry, Germany) using the quality assurance kit Express QA test package & clinical cases verification. The standard plan in QA mode is made in TPS and delivered under a medical linear accelerator like pre-treatment verification. The measured and calculated fluence is compared and accordingly the Gamma analysis is done.
Results: Express QA tests & clinical cases fields showed a great agreement with TPS calculations with 3% Dose Distribution ( DD ) and 3 mm Distance to Aggrement ( DTA) Gamma criteria. The open field 10 x 10 cm2 and 20 x 20 cm2 found to be passed with 100% results for 3% &3mm criteria. 3ABUT test helped in setting the leaf offset value from default 0.0mm to 0.15mm. FourL test provides adjustment in leaf transmission value and leaf groove width from 0.012 to 0.0073 and 1.0mm to 0.7mm respectively. H&N and Prostate clinical cases passed with more than 95% for set criteria (3%DD&3mm). The absolute point dose measurement agreement was found to be more than 97%.
Conclusion: This study confirmed that the appropriate MLC check before starting IMRT and VMAT in a clinic and even after any repair is required thorough quality assurance check using Express QA and TG 119 package. Small changes in the MLC parameters like leaf offset, groove width and transmission n the TPS model can cause large changes in the calculated dose. At least annually Express QA test is recommended to every user to confirm the status of changed MLC parameters in due course of time.


Main Subjects

  1. Kerns JR, Followill DS, Lowenstein J, Molineu A, Alvarez P, Taylor PA, Kry SF. Reference dosimetry data and modeling challenges for Elekta accelerators based on IROCā€Houston site visit data. Medical physics. 2018 May;45(5):2337-44. https://doi:10.1002/mp.12865
  2. Nelms BE, Chan MF, Jarry G, Lemire M, Lowden J, Hampton C, Feygelman V. Evaluating IMRT and VMAT dose accuracy: practical examples of failure to detect systematic errors when applying a commonly used metric and action levels. Medical physics. 2013 Nov;40(11):111722.. https://doi: 10.1118/1.4826166.
  3. AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee, Boyer A. Basic applications of multileaf collimators. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2001 Jul.
  4. Mu G, Ludlum E, Xia P. Impact of MLC leaf position errors on simple and complex IMRT plans for head and neck cancer. Physics in medicine & biology. 2007 Dec 12; 53(1):77. https://dol10.1088/0031-9155/53/1/005
  5. IMPAC Medical Systems Inc. Monaco dose calculation technical reference. Sunnyvale, CA: IMPAC Medical Systems; 2013.
  6. Alashrah S, El-Taher A. Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy Plans Verification Using a Gaussian Convolution Kernel to Correct the Single Chamber Response Function of the I'mRT MatriXX Array. Journal of Applied Sciences. 2015 Mar;15(3):483-91.
  7. Shimohigashi Y, Araki F, Tominaga H, Sakata J, Kawasaki K, Kanetake N, Iwashita Y, Yoshimura S, Kawakami T, Ishihara T, Okuda T. Angular dependence correction of MatriXX and its application to composite dose verification. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2012 Sep;13(5):198-214.
  8. IMPAC Medical Systems Inc. Monaco technical reference — post modeling adjustment of MLC parameters, version 2.00. Sunnyvale, CA: IMPAC Medical Systems; n.d.
  9. Ezzell GA, Burmeister JW, Dogan N, LoSasso TJ, Mechalakos JG, Mihailidis D, Molineu A, Palta JR, Ramsey CR, Salter BJ, Shi J. IMRT commissioning: multiple institution planning and dosimetry comparisons, a report from AAPM Task Group 119. Medical physics. 2009 Nov;36(11):5359-73.
  10. Bedford JL, Warrington AP. Commissioning of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics. 2009 Feb 1;73(2):537-45.
  11. Kavousi N, Nedaie HA, Gholami S, Esfahani M, Geraily G. Evaluation of dose calculation algorithms accuracy for eclipse, PCRT3D, and monaco treatment planning systems using IAEA TPS commissioning tests in a Heterogeneous Phantom. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2019 Jul 1;16(4):285-93.
  12. Snyder JE, Hyer DE, Flynn RT, Boczkowski A, Wang D. The commissioning and validation of Monaco treatment planning system on an Elekta Versa HD linear accelerator. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2019 Jan;20(1):184-93.
  13. Kavousi N, Nedaie HA, Gholami S, Esfahani M. Dosimetric Evaluation of Dose calculation algorithms of Monaco Treatment Planning System in the heterogeneities area. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2018 Dec 1;15(Special Issue-12th. Iranian Congress of Medical Physics):54-.
  14. Stefanos Diamantopoulos, Kalliopi Platoni, Georgios Patatoukas, Pantelis Karaiskos, Vassilis Kouloulias, Efstathios Efstathopoulos,Treatment plan verification: A review on the comparison of dose distributions,Physica Medica,Volume 67,2019,Pages 107-115, ISSN 1120-1797,







Volume 18, Issue 6
November and December 2021
Pages 452-460
  • Receive Date: 30 August 2020
  • Revise Date: 23 December 2020
  • Accept Date: 26 December 2020