Miniature multileaf collimator as an alternative to traditional circular collimators for stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic radiotherapy

Steeper dose gradients resulting from reduced source to target distance-a planning system independent study

Purpose

To quantify the contribution of penumbra in the improvement of healthy tissue sparing at reduced source‐to‐axis distance (SAD) for simple spherical target and different prescription isodoses (PI).

Method

A TPS‐independent method was used to estimate three‐dimensional (3D) dose distribution for stereotactic treatment of spherical targets of 0.5 cm radius based on single beam two‐dimensional (2D) film dosimetry measurements. 1 cm target constitutes the worst case for the conformation with standard Multi‐Leaf Collimator (MLC) with 0.5 cm leaf width. The measured 2D transverse dose cross‐sections and the profiles in leaf and jaw directions were used to calculate radial dose distribution from isotropic beam arrangement, for both quadratic and circular beam openings, respectively. The results were compared for standard (100 cm) and reduced SAD 70 and 55 cm for different PI.

Results

For practical reduction of SAD using quadratic openings, the improvement of healthy tissue sparing (HTS) at distances up to 3 times the PTV radius was at least 6%–12%; gradient indices (GI) were reduced by 3–39% for PI between 40% and 90%. Except for PI of 80% and 90%, quadratic apertures at SAD 70 cm improved the HTS by up to 20% compared to circular openings at 100 cm or were at least equivalent; GI were 3%–33% lower for reduced SAD in the PI range 40%–70%. For PI = 80% and 90% the results depend on the circular collimator model.

Conclusion

Stereotactic treatments of spherical targets delivered at reduced SAD of 70 or 55 cm using MLC spare healthy tissue around the target at least as good as treatments at SAD 100 cm using circular collimators. The steeper beam penumbra at reduced SAD seems to be as important as perfect target conformity. The authors argue therefore that the beam penumbra width should be addressed in the stereotactic studies.

Dosimetric characteristics of dual-layer multileaf collimation for small-field and intensity-modulated radiation therapy applications

The purpose of the present work was to measure the performance characteristics in the penumbra region and on the leaf‐end of an innovative dual‐layer micro multileaf collimator (DmMLC). The DmMLC consists of two orthogonal (upper and lower) layers of leaves; a standard MLC consists of one layer. The DmMLC provides unique performance characteristics in smoothing dose undulation, reducing leaf‐end transmission, and reducing MLC field dependence of the leaf stepping angle. Two standard MLCs (80‐leaf and 120‐leaf versions: Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA), a DmMLC (AccuKnife: Initia Medical Technology, Canton, MA), and a Cerrobend (Cerro Metal Products, Bellefonte, PA) block were used in performance studies involving a triangular field, a cross leaf‐end field, and a circular field. Measurements were made with 6‐MV X‐rays and extended dose range film at a depth of 5 cm in Solid Water (Gammex rmi, Middleton, WI) at a source–axis distance of 100 cm. The field penumbra width measured between the 20% and 80% isodose lines through the MLC‐80, MLC‐120, DmMLC, and Cerrobend block were 9.0, 5.0, 3.0, and 2.0 mm respectively. The dose undulation amplitude of the 50% isodose line was measured as 5.5, 2.0, and 0.5 mm for the MLC‐80, MLC‐120, and DmMLC respectively. The planar dose difference between the MLC‐80, MLC‐120, and DmMLC against Cerrobend block was measured as ranging at ±52.5%,±35.0%, and ±20.0% respectively. The leaf‐end transmission was measured at 22.4% in maximum and 15.4% in average when closing a single layer of the DmMLC, and at 2.4% in maximum and 2.1% in average when closing both layers. The MLC dependence of the leaf stepping angle with the DmMLC ranged from 45 degrees to 90 degrees. The standard MLC leaf stepping angle ranged from 0 degrees to 90 degrees. In conclusion, the dose undulation, leaf‐end transmission, and MLC field dependence of the leaf stepping angle with the DmMLC were remarkably reduced as compared with those of the standard MLCs. And as compared with Cerrobend block, the DmMLC provided very comparable performance in field‐edge smoothing and in the shaping of complex fields.

PACS numbers: 87.56.Jk, 87.56.Nk, 87.56.Nj, 87.57.Nt

Advantages of mini-multileaf in stereotactic radiotherapy

Over the past few decades, cones of different diameter (12.5 mm to 40 mm) were used for treatment of intracranial lesions. These give very focused dose delivery to the target with minimum dose to outside normal brain tissues. This study is intended to compare the older method of arc-based stereotactic treatments using cones with the new mini-multileaf collimator (mMLC). Treatment plans are made for various sites of intracranial lesions with the cones and mMLC. In case of nonspherical lesions, more than one isocenter is used to get an optimum dose distribution with cones, while a single isocenter is sufficient with mMLC. Treatment plans are compared for irregular lesions using cones with multiple isocenters and mMLC. It is observed that conformity index and dose heterogeneity are better for mMLC based treatments.

Treatment planning for stereotactic radiosurgery with photon beams

Stereotactic Radiosurgery (SRS) has evolved as a unique discipline that combines aspects of both surgery and radiation oncology. Technological developments in the past few decades have provided a wide array of treatment techniques, including (i) the Gamma Knife; (ii) Linac-based stereotactic techniques using circular collimators or using micro multileaf collimators (mMLCs); (iii) the Cyber Knife, using an x-band linac mounted on a robotic arm; and (iv) serial and spiral tomotherapy. This paper provides a review of the treatment planning methods for stereotactic radiosurgery. Because of the differences in planning strategies used for each SRS technique, this paper will provide both a general review of the pre-requisites and common features of SRS treatment planning and the planning techniques specific to each of the SRS techniques.

Gentlemen (and ladies), choose your weapons: Gamma knife vs. linear accelerator radiosurgery

This article compares and contrasts Gamma Knife radiosurgery with linear accelerator-based radiosurgery; where appropriate, Cyberknife technology is discussed. Topics covered are: positioning of the head (invasive versus non-invasive positioning systems); collimator construction; beam properties; beam arrangements; treatment planning; and issues regarding manpower (including a discussion of patient repositioning during treatment), machine availability, and financial considerations.