Dosimetric comparison of different multileaf collimator leaves in treatment planning of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for cervical cancer

To study the effect of multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf widths (standard MLC [sMLC] width of 10 mm and micro-MLC [mMLC] width of 4 mm) on intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for cervical cancer. Between January 2010 and August 2010, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 12 patients with cervical cancer. The treatment plans for all patients were generated with the same machine setup parameters and optimization methods in a treatment planning system (TPS) based on 2 commercial Elekta MLC devices. The dose distribution for the planning tumor volume (PTV), the dose sparing for organs at risk (OARs), the monitor units (MUs), and the number of IMRT segments were evaluated. For the delivery efficiency, the MUs were significantly higher in the sMLC-IMRT plan than in the mMLC-IMRT plan (802 +/- 56.9 vs 702 +/- 56.7; p < 0.05). The number of segments in the plans were 58.75 +/- 1.8 and 59 +/- 1.04 (p > 0.05). For the planning quality, the conformity index (Cl) between the 2 paired IMRT plans with the mMLC and the sMLC did not differ significantly (average: 0.817 +/- 0.024 vs 0.810 +/- 0.028; p > 0.05). The differences of the homogeneity index (HI) between the 2 paired plans were statistically significant (average: 1.122 +/- 0.010 vs 1.132 +/- 0.014; p < 0.01). For OARs, the rectum, bladder, small intestine, and bony pelvis were evaluated in terms of V-10, V-20, V-30, and V-40, percentage of contoured OAR volumes receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy, respectively, and the mean dose (D-mean) received. The IMRT mean, plans with the mMLC protected the OARs better than the plans with the sMLC. There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in evaluated parameters between the 2 paired IMRT plans, except for V-30 and V-40 of the rectum and V-10, V-20, V-40, and D-mean of the bladder. IMRT plans with the mMLC showed advantages over the plans with the sMLC in dose homogeneity for targets, dose sparing of OARs, and fewer MUs in cervical cancer. (C) 2013 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.