ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
On the MLC leaves alignment in the direction orthogonal to movement.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ACPSEM guideline: commissioning and quality assurance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linear Accelerators.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Technical Note: Investigating of dosimetric leaf gap and leaf transmission factor variations across gantry and collimator angles in volumetric modulation arc therapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Leaf-individual calibration for a double stack multileaf collimator in photon radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main focus of the recommended spatial accuracy tests for the multi-leaf collimators (MLC) is calibration of the leaf position along the movement direction and overall alignment to the radiation isocenter. No explicit attention was typically paid to the alignment of the leaves from the opposing banks in the direction orthogonal to movement. This paper is a case study demonstrating that verification of such alignment at the time of acceptance testing is prudent. The original standard MLC (SMLC) on an MRIdian MRI-guided linac (ViewRay Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) was upgraded to a high-speed MLC (HSMLC), which is supposed to be mechanically identical to the SMLC except for the higher drive screw pitch. The results of the end-to-end IMRT tests demonstrated unacceptable dosimetric results exemplified by an average and maximum ion chamber (IC) point dose error in the high-dose low-gradient region of 2.5 ± 1.4% and 4.6%, respectively. Before the upgrade, those values were 0.3 ± 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively. An exhaustive analysis of possible failure modes eventually zeroed in on the average misalignment of about 1 mm in the Y (along the couch) direction between the right and left upper MLC banks. The MLC was replaced, reducing the Y-direction misalignment to 0.4 mm. As a result, the average and maximum IC dose-errors became acceptable 1.0 ± 0.7% and 1.6%, respectively. Simple film and/or chamber array tests during acceptance testing can easily detect Y-direction misalignments between opposing leaves banks measuring a fraction of a mm at isocenter. Left undetected, such misalignment can cause nontrivial dosimetric consequences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.