Literature DB >> 15798330

Use of an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device for multileaf collimator quality control and calibration.

S J K Baker1, G J Budgell, R I MacKay.   

Abstract

Multileaf collimator (MLC) calibration and quality control is a time-consuming procedure typically involving the processing, scanning and analysis of films to measure leaf and collimator positions. Faster and more reliable calibration procedures are required for these tasks, especially with the introduction of intensity modulated radiotherapy which requires more frequent checking and finer positional leaf tolerances than previously. A routine quality control (QC) technique to measure MLC leaf bank gain and offset, as well as minor offsets (individual leaf position relative to a reference leaf), using an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (EPID) has been developed. The technique also tests the calibration of the primary and back-up collimators. A detailed comparison between film and EPID measurements has been performed for six linear accelerators (linacs) equipped with MLC and amorphous silicon EPIDs. Measurements of field size from 4 to 24 cm with the EPID were systematically smaller than film measurements over all field sizes by 0.4 mm for leaves/back-up collimators and by 0.2 mm for conventional collimators. This effect is due to the gain calibration correction applied by the EPID, resulting in a 'flattening' of primary beam profiles. Linac dependent systematic differences of up to 0.5 mm in individual leaf/collimator positions were also found between EPID and film measurements due to the difference between the mechanical and radiation axes of rotation. When corrections for these systematic differences were applied, the residual random differences between EPID and film were 0.23 mm and 0.26 mm (1 standard deviation) for field size and individual leaf/back-up collimator position, respectively. Measured gains (over a distance of 220 mm) always agreed within 0.4 mm with a standard deviation of 0.17 mm. Minor offset measurements gave a mean agreement between EPID and film of 0.01+/-0.10 mm (1 standard deviation) after correction for the tilt of the EPID and small rotational misalignments between leaf banks and the back-up collimators used as a reference straight edge. Reproducibility of EPID measurements was found to be very high, with a standard deviation of <0.05 mm for field size and <0.1 mm for individual leaf/collimator positions for a 10x10 cm2 field. A standard set of QC images (three field sizes defined both by leaves only and collimators only) can be acquired in less than 20 min and analysed in 5 min.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15798330     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/50/7/003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  12 in total

1.  Quality assurance of dynamic parameters in volumetric modulated arc therapy.

Authors:  A Manikandan; B Sarkar; R Holla; T R Vivek; N Sujatha
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Evaluation of AutoCAL for electronic portal imaging device-based multi-leaf collimator quality assurance.

Authors:  Tarafder J Shameem
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2015-10-27

3.  The use of EPID-measured leaf sequence files for IMRT dose reconstruction in adaptive radiation therapy.

Authors:  Louis Lee; Weihua Mao; Lei Xing
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  QA issues for computer-controlled treatment delivery: this is not your old R/V system any more!

Authors:  Benedick A Fraass
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 7.038

5.  Use of artificial neural network for pretreatment verification of intensity modulation radiation therapy fields.

Authors:  Seied Rabie Mahdavi; Asieh Tavakol; Mastaneh Sanei; Seyed Hadi Molana; Farshid Arbabi; Aram Rostami; Sohrab Barimani
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  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

7.  Clinical commissioning and use of the Novalis Tx linear accelerator for SRS and SBRT.

Authors:  Jinkoo Kim; Ning Wen; Jian-Yue Jin; Nicole Walls; Sangroh Kim; Haisen Li; Lei Ren; Yimei Huang; Anthony Doemer; Kathleen Faber; Tina Kunkel; Ahssan Balawi; Kimberly Garbarino; Kenneth Levin; Samir Patel; Munther Ajlouni; Brett Miller; Teamor Nurushev; Calvin Huntzinger; Raymond Schulz; Indrin J Chetty; Benjamin Movsas; Samuel Ryu
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  The impact of continuously-variable dose rate VMAT on beam stability, MLC positioning, and overall plan dosimetry.

Authors:  Christopher Boylan; Alan McWilliam; Emily Johnstone; Carl Rowbottom
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 2.102

9.  EPID-based dosimetry to verify IMRT planar dose distribution for the aS1200 EPID and FFF beams.

Authors:  Narges Miri; Peter Keller; Benjamin J Zwan; Peter Greer
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

10.  Detector system dose verification comparisons for arc therapy: couch vs. gantry mount.

Authors:  Arjunan Manikandan; Biplab Sarkar; Maitreyee Nandy; Chandra Sekaran Sureka; Michael S Gossman; Nadendla Sujatha; Vivek Thirupathur Rajendran
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 2.102

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.