Literature DB >> 15191282

Performance of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) used in radiotherapy: image quality and dose measurements.

F Cremers1, Th Frenzel, C Kausch, D Albers, T Schönborn, R Schmidt.   

Abstract

The aim of our study was to compare the image and dosimetric quality of two different imaging systems. The first one is a fluoroscopic electronic portal imaging device (first generation), while the second is based on an amorphous silicon flat-panel array (second generation). The parameters describing image quality include spatial resolution [modulation transfer function (MTF)], noise [noise power spectrum (NPS)], and signal-to-noise transfer [detective quantum efficiency (DQE)]. The dosimetric measurements were compared with ionization chamber as well as with film measurements. The response of the flat-panel imager and the fluoroscopic-optical device was determined performing a two-step Monte Carlo simulation. All measurements were performed in a 6 MV linear accelerator photon beam. The resolution (MTF) of the fluoroscopic device (f 1/2 = 0.3 mm(-1)) is larger than of the amorphous silicon based system (f 1/2 = 0.21 mm(-1)), which is due to the missing backscattered photons and the smaller pixel size. The noise measurements (NPS) show the correlation of neighboring pixels of the amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device, whereas the NPS of the fluoroscopic system is frequency independent. At zero spatial frequency the DQE of the flat-panel imager has a value of 0.008 (0.8%). Due to the minor frequency dependency this device may be almost x-ray quantum limited. Monte Carlo simulations verified these characteristics. For the fluoroscopic imaging system the DQE at low frequencies is about 0.0008 (0.08%) and degrades with higher frequencies. Dose measurements with the flat-panel imager revealed that images can only be directly converted to portal dose images, if scatter can be neglected. Thus objects distant to the detector (e.g., inhomogeneous dose distribution generated by a modificator) can be verified dosimetrically, while objects close to a detector (e.g., a patient) cannot be verified directly and must be scatter corrected prior to verification. This is justified by the response of the flat-panel imaging device revealing a strong dependency at low energies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15191282     DOI: 10.1118/1.1688212

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  10 in total

1.  Abstracts of the 1st International Conference on the Clinical Use of Tomotherapy. October 17-18, 2008. Munich, Germany.

Authors: 
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.621

2.  Time and frequency to observe fiducial markers in MLC-modulated fields during prostate IMRT/VMAT beam delivery.

Authors:  Qianqian Xu; Xu Tong; Muhan Lin; Xiaoming Chen; Ahmed ElDib; Teh Lin; Lili Chen; C-M Charlie Ma
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 2.685

3.  Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy.

Authors:  Csilla Pesznyák; István Polgár; Csaba Weisz; Réka Király; Pál Zaránd
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 2.991

4.  A simple quality assurance test tool for the visual verification of light and radiation field congruent using electronic portal images device and computed radiography.

Authors:  Christopher F Njeh; Blas Caroprese; Pushkar Desai
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 3.481

5.  Simulation approach for the evaluation of tracking accuracy in radiotherapy: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Rie Tanaka; Katsuhiro Ichikawa; Shinichiro Mori; Sigeru Sanada
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2012-07-22       Impact factor: 2.724

6.  A quality assurance phantom for electronic portal imaging devices.

Authors:  Indra J Das; Minsong Cao; Chee-Wai Cheng; Vladimir Misic; Klaus Scheuring; Edmund Schüle; Peter A S Johnstone
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  A method for deconvolution of integrated electronic portal images to obtain incident fluence for dose reconstruction.

Authors:  Wendel Dean Renner; Kevin Norton; Timothy Holmes
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2005-11-21       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  A new approach for the pixel map sensitivity (PMS) evaluation of an electronic portal imaging device (EPID).

Authors:  Alberto Boriano; Francesco Lucio; Elisa Calamia; Elvio Russi; Flavio Marchetto
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2013-11-04       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  Enhancement of megavoltage electronic portal images for markerless tumor tracking.

Authors:  Kwang-Ho Cheong; Jai-Woong Yoon; Soah Park; Taejin Hwang; Sei-Kwon Kang; Taeryool Koo; Tae Jin Han; Haeyoung Kim; Me Yeon Lee; Kyoung Ju Kim; Hoonsik Bae
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Performance optimization of the Varian aS500 EPID system.

Authors:  Lucie Berger; Pascal François; Geneviève Gaboriaud; Jean-Claude Rosenwald
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.