Characterization of positional accuracy of a double‐focused and double‐stack multileaf collimator on an MR‐guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) Linac using an IC‐profiler array
Authors: Mittauer Kathryn E. , Yadav Poonam , Paliwal Bhudatt , Bayouth John E. 
Published: November 2019

PurposeWith advance magnetic resonance (MR)‐guided online adaptive radiotherapy (MRgoART) relying on calculation‐based intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) quality assurance (QA), accurate and sensitive QA of the multileaf collimator (MLC) becomes an increasingly essential component for routine machine QA. As such, it is important to assure compliance with the AAPM TG142 guidelines to supplement calculation‐based QA methods for an online adaptive radiotherapy program. We have developed and implemented an efficient and highly sensitive QA procedure using an ionization chamber profiler (ICP) array to enable real‐time characterization of the positional accuracy of a double‐focused and double‐stacked MLC on a clinical MR‐guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) system and to supplement calculation‐based QA for an MRgoART program.MethodsAn in‐house MR‐compatible jig was used to position the ICP (detector resolution 5 mm on X/Y axis) at an extended SDD of 108.4 cm to enable each MLC leaf (8.3 mm leaf width at isocenter) to be uniquely determined by two neighboring ion chambers. The MRgRT linac system utilizes a novel jawless, double‐focused, and double‐stacked MLC design such that the upper bank (MLC1) and lower bank (MLC2) are offset by half a leaf width. Positional accuracy was characterized by three methods: single bank half‐beam block (HBB) at central axis, forward slash diagonal (FSD), and backslash diagonal (BSD) at off‐axis. Measurements were performed for each bank in which each leaf occludes half of a detector. A corresponding reference field with the MLC retracted from occlusion was measured. The sensitivities of HBB, FSD, and BSD were evaluated by introducing 0.5–2.5 mm of known errors in 0.5 mm increments, in both positive and negative directions. The relationship between detector response and MLC error was established. Over a 6‐month longitudinal assessment, we have evaluated MLC performance with weekly QA of HBB among cardinal angles, and monthly QA of FSD and BSD.ResultsA strong correlation was found between detector response of percentage dose difference and MLC positional error introduced (N = 350 introduced errors) for both HBB and FSD/BSD with coefficient of determination of 0.999 and 0.977, respectively. The relationship between detector response to MLC positional change was found to be 20.65%/mm for HBB and 11.14%/mm for FSD and BSD. At baseline, the mean MLC positional accuracy averaged across all leaves was 0.06 ± 0.27 mm (HBB), 0.04 ± 0.52 mm (FSD), −0.06 ± 0.51 mm (BSD). The mean MLC positional accuracy relative to baseline over the 6‐month assessment was found to be highly reproducible at 0.00 ± 0.12 mm (HBB; N = 28 weeks), −0.02 ± 0.19 mm (FSD; N = 6 months), −0.03 ± 0.19 mm (BSD; N = 6 months).ConclusionsPositional accuracy of a novel jawless, double‐focused, double‐stacked MLC has been characterized and monitored over 6 months with an efficient, highly sensitive, and robust method using an ICP array. This routine QA method supplements calculation‐based IMRT QA for an online adaptive radiotherapy program. Longitudinal assessment demonstrated no‐drift in the MLC calibration. A highly reproducible jig setup allowed the validation of MLC positional accuracy to be within TG142 criteria of ±1 mm for 99% of measurements (i.e., 100% HBB, 95% BSD, 95% FSD) over the 6‐month assessment.