Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 8, 2025
Proton Therapy Delivery and Its Clinical Application in Select Solid Tumor Malignancies
Published on: February 6, 2019
Effect of treatment planning system parameters on beam modulation complexity for treatment plans with single-layer
Paulo Quintero1,2, Yongqiang Cheng3, David Benoit2
1Medical Physics Service, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Objective:
High levels of beam modulation complexity (MC) and monitor units (MU) can compromise the plan deliverability of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatments. Our study evaluates the effect of three treatment planning system (TPS) parameters on MC and MU using different multi-leaf collimator (MLC) architectures.
Methods:
192 volumetric modulated arc therapy plans were calculated using one virtual prostate phantom considering three main settings: (1) three TPS-parameters (Convergence; Aperture Shape Controller, ASC; and Dose Calculation Resolution, DCR) selected from Eclipse v15.6, (2) four levels of dose-sparing priority for organs at risk (OAR), and (3) two treatment units with same nominal conformity resolution and different MLC architectures (Halcyon-v2 dual-layer MLC, DL-MLC & TrueBeam single-layer MLC, SL-MLC). We use seven complexity metrics to evaluate the MC, including two new metrics for DL-MLC, assessed by their correlation with γ passing rate (GPR) analysis.
Results:
DL-MLC plans demonstrated lower dose-sparing values than SL-MLC plans (p<0.05). TPS-parameters did not change significantly the complexity metrics for either MLC architectures. However, for SL-MLC, significant variations of MU, target volume dose-homogeneity, and dose spillage were associated with ASC and DCR (p<0.05). MU were found to be correlated (highly or moderately) with all complexity metrics (p<0.05) for both MLC plans. Additionally, our new complexity metrics presented a moderate correlation with GPR (r<0.65). An important correlation was demonstrated between MC (plan deliverability) and dose-sparing priority level for DL-MLC.
Conclusions:
TPS-parameters selected do not change MC for DL-MLC architecture, but they might have a potential use to control the MU, PTV homogeneity or dose spillage for SL-MLC. Our new DL-MLC complexity metrics presented important information to be considered in future pre-treatment quality assurance programs. Finally, the prominent dependence between plan deliverability and priority applied to OAR dose sparing for DL-MLC needs to be analyzed and considered as an additional predictor of GPRs in further studies.
Advances In Knowledge:
Dose-sparing priority might influence in modulation complexity of DL-MLC.
