title: A multi-institution evaluation of MLC log files and performance in IMRT delivery.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The multileaf collimator (MLC) is a critical component to accurate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) delivery. This study examined MLC positional accuracy via MLC logs from Varian machines from six institutions and three delivery techniques to evaluate typical positional accuracy and treatment and mechanical parameters that affect accuracy. Typical accuracy achieved was compared against TG-142 recommendations for MLC performance; more appropriate recommendations are suggested.
  
  
  METHODS
  Over 85,000 Varian MLC treatment logs were collected from six institutions and analyzed with FractionCHECK. Data were binned according to institution and treatment type to determine overall root mean square (RMS) and 95th percentile error values, and then to look for correlations between those errors and with mechanical and treatment parameters including mean and maximum leaf speed, gantry angle, beam-on time, mean leaf error, and number of segments.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Results of treatment logs found that leaf RMS error and 95th percentile leaf error were consistent between institutions, but varied by treatment type. The step and shoot technique had very small errors: the mean RMS leaf error was 0.008 mm. For dynamic treatments the mean RMS leaf error was 0.32 mm, while volumetric-modulated arc treatment (VMAT) showed an RMS leaf error of 0.46 mm. Most MLC leaf errors were found to be well below TG-142 recommended tolerances. For the dynamic and VMAT techniques, the mean and maximum leaf speeds were significantly linked to the leaf RMS error. Additionally, for dynamic delivery, the mean leaf error was correlated with RMS error, whereas for VMAT the average gantry speed was correlated. For all treatments, the RMS error and the 95th percentile leaf error were correlated.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Restricting the maximum leaf speed can help improve MLC performance for dynamic and VMAT deliveries. Furthermore, the tolerances of leaf RMS and error counts for all treatment types should be tightened from the TG-142 values to make them more appropriate for clinical performance. Values of 1 mm for the 95th percentile of leaf RMS error and 1.5 mm for the 95th percentile leaf error are suggested as action levels for all treatment types.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. jrkerns@mdanderson.org.
authors.forename: James R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Kerns
authors.forename: Nathan
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Childress
authors.forename: Stephen F
authors.initials: SF
authors.lastname: Kry
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D055615:Electrical Equipment and Supplies; D006801:Humans; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D010315:Particle Accelerators / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011786:Quality Control; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated / Q000295:instrumentation*
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2002 Spring;3(2):63-72
references.pmid: 11958647
references.citation: Med Phys. 2008 Jan;35(1):310-7
references.pmid: 18293586
references.citation: Med Phys. 2009 Jul;36(7):3304-9
references.pmid: 19673226
references.citation: Med Phys. 2004 Jun;31(6):1593-602
references.pmid: 15259664
references.citation: Med Phys. 2009 Sep;36(9):4197-212
references.pmid: 19810494
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Oct 1;72(2):575-81
references.pmid: 18793960
references.citation: Med Phys. 2002 May;29(5):810-20
references.pmid: 12033577
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2012 Nov 7;57(21):6761-77
references.pmid: 23032423
references.citation: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;71(1 Suppl):S85-8
references.pmid: 18406945
references.citation: Med Phys. 2006 Jul;33(7):2557-64
references.pmid: 16898460
references.citation: J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012 Sep 06;13(5):3837
references.pmid: 22955649
references.citation: Med Phys. 2012 Oct;39(10):5882-90
references.pmid: 23039627
references.citation: Med Dosim. 2013 Summer;38(2):143-7
references.pmid: 23402928
references.citation: Phys Med Biol. 2008 Jan 7;53(1):77-88
references.pmid: 18182688