Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025

Development of an Individual-Tree Basal Area Increment Model using a Linear Mixed-Effects Approach
Published on: July 3, 2020
Dosimetric sensitivity of an enhanced leaf model (ELM) for individual versus averaged machines
Rafail Panagi1, Rhydian Caines1, Carl G Rowbottom1
1Medical Physics Department, The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Background:
With the introduction of a new multi-leaf collimator (MLC) enhanced leaf model (ELM) in the Varian Eclipse™ treatment planning system, there is currently limited data regarding the dosimetric sensitivity to real-world variation in the ELM parameters, and its clinical relevance.
Purpose:
To characterize the variation in ELM parameters across a large department with ten linear accelerators and investigate the feasibility of using a single machine-averaged ELM for treatment planning. This could achieve time and resource savings from reduced quality assurance, while allowing easy transfer of patients between machines.
Methods:
Clinical plans of a range of sites (head and neck, prostate, breast, lung, and brain), techniques (VMAT, IMRT, SBRT, and SRS), and energies (6 MV, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV, and 10 MV FFF) were recalculated on Varian TrueBeam™ (120 MLC) and Varian EDGE™ (HD120 MLC), with machine-specific ELM beam models, an averaged machine and an outlier machine model. A range of clinically relevant metrics relating to target coverage (e.g. PTV D98%, D50%, D2%) and OAR doses (dosimetric, volumetric, conformity, and gradient indices) were evaluated.
Results:
For the target metrics, the maximum percentage deviation from the mean was 0.422%, 0.157%, and 1.956% for the cases of the individual machines, the averaged machine and the outlier machine correspondingly, while the maximum absolute dose differences were 0.28 Gy, 0.07 Gy, and 0.38 Gy. For the OAR metrics, the maximum deviation from the mean was 1.833%, 0.204%, and 5.722% for the individual, averaged, and outlier machines, while the maximum absolute dose differences were 0.41 Gy, 0.10 Gy, and 0.97 Gy.
Conclusions:
For machines that are well matched in terms of dosimetry for transmission and sweeping gap fields, the use of an averaged machine model is unlikely to introduce clinically significant dosimetric differences to treatment plans.
More Related Videos
12:11Measurement of Leaf Hydraulic Conductance and Stomatal Conductance and Their Responses to Irradiance and Dehydration Using the Evaporative Flux Method EFM
Published on: December 31, 2012
00:09Leaf Area Index Estimation Using Three Distinct Methods in Pure Deciduous Stands
Published on: August 29, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Light Acquisition
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving
In individual population analyses, different algorithms are employed, such as Cauchy's method, which uses a...