SU-E-T-128: Dosimetric Evaluation of MLC Modeling in Pinnacle V9.2 for Varian TrueBeam STx

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the effects of MLC modeling after commissioning the Varian TrueBeam LINAC in Pinnacle version 9.2.

Methods:

Stepand-shoot IMRT QAs were investigated when we observed our measured absolute dose results using ion chamber (Capintec PR-05P) were uncharacteristically low; about 4–5% compared to doses calculated by Pinnacle3 (Phillips, Madison, WI). This problem was predominant for large and highly modulated head & neck (HN) treatments. Intuitively we knew this had to be related to shortcomings in the MLC modeling in Pinnacle. Using film QA we were able to iteratively adjust the MLC parameters. We confirmed results by re-testing five failed IMRT QA patients; and ion chamber measurements were verified in Quasar anthropomorphic phantom.

Results:

After commissioning the LINAC in Pinnacle version 9.2, the MLC transmission for 6X, 10X and 15X were 2.0%, 1.7% and 2.0%, respectively, and additional Interleaf leakage for all three energies was 0.5%. These parameters were obtained from profiles scanned with an Edge detector (Sun Nuclear, Melbourne, FL) during machine commissioning. A Verification testing with radiographic EDR2 film (Kodak, Rochester, NY) measurement was performed by creating a closed MLC leaf pattern and analyzing using RIT software (RIT, Colorado Springs, CO). This reduced MLC transmission for 6X, 10X and 15X to 0.7%, 0.9% and 0.9%, respectively; while increasing additional Interleaf leakage for all three energies to 1.0%.

Conclusion:

Radiographic film measurements were used to correct MLC transmission values for step & shoot IMRT fields used in Pinnacle version 9.2. After adjusting the MLC parameters to correlate with the film QA, there was still very good agreement between the Pinnacle model and commissioning data. Using the same QA methodology, we were also able to improve the beam models for the Varian C-series linacs, Novalis_Tx, and TrueBeam M-120 linacs.

Ancillary