{"title":"Efficient MLC quality assurance using a virtual picket fence test in an MR-Linac","authors":"Kai Yuan, Matthew Manhin Cheung, Louis Lee","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The Elekta Unity MR-Linac system integrates magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a linear accelerator (Linac) for adaptive radiation therapy. Traditional quality assurance (QA) methods for multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) face challenges in this system due to the magnetic field and limited field size of electronic portal imaging devices (EPID).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This study aims to develop a ‘virtual picket fence’ test using machine log files to evaluate MLC performance in the Elekta Unity MR-Linac system, providing a more efficient and comprehensive QA method that overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A picket fence test plan with 11 segments was delivered on the Elekta Unity system. Maximum absolute error and root mean square (RMS) error for each leaf were calculated by comparing log file data with nominal values. A deliberate 1 mm error was introduced in selected MLCs to test the sensitivity of the virtual test. The results from the log file were further compared with measurements from radiochromic films.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The maximum deviation between log file data and nominal values was within 1 mm for all leaves. The virtual picket fence test successfully identified MLCs with deviations beyond the 0.5 mm warning threshold in the error-introduced test. Comparisons with film-based measurements showed good agreement, with deviations between film and log file data also within 1 mm.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The virtual picket fence test provides an efficient and comprehensive method for MLC QA in the Elekta Unity MR-Linac system. This method can be integrated into weekly QA workflows alongside traditional film-based methods for thorough quality control.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.70232","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70232","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
The Elekta Unity MR-Linac system integrates magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a linear accelerator (Linac) for adaptive radiation therapy. Traditional quality assurance (QA) methods for multi-leaf collimators (MLCs) face challenges in this system due to the magnetic field and limited field size of electronic portal imaging devices (EPID).
Purpose
This study aims to develop a ‘virtual picket fence’ test using machine log files to evaluate MLC performance in the Elekta Unity MR-Linac system, providing a more efficient and comprehensive QA method that overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches.
Methods
A picket fence test plan with 11 segments was delivered on the Elekta Unity system. Maximum absolute error and root mean square (RMS) error for each leaf were calculated by comparing log file data with nominal values. A deliberate 1 mm error was introduced in selected MLCs to test the sensitivity of the virtual test. The results from the log file were further compared with measurements from radiochromic films.
Results
The maximum deviation between log file data and nominal values was within 1 mm for all leaves. The virtual picket fence test successfully identified MLCs with deviations beyond the 0.5 mm warning threshold in the error-introduced test. Comparisons with film-based measurements showed good agreement, with deviations between film and log file data also within 1 mm.
Conclusions
The virtual picket fence test provides an efficient and comprehensive method for MLC QA in the Elekta Unity MR-Linac system. This method can be integrated into weekly QA workflows alongside traditional film-based methods for thorough quality control.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission.
JACMP will publish:
-Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500.
-Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed.
-Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references.
-Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents.
-Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews.
-Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics.
-Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic