Literature DB >> 23231296

Measured vs simulated portal images for low MU fields on three accelerator types: possible consequences for 2D portal dosimetry.

Mark Podesta1, Sebastiaan M J J G Nijsten, Julia Snaith, Marc Orlandini, Tim Lustberg, Davy Emans, Trent Aland, Frank Verhaegen.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: As external beam treatment plans become more dynamic and the dose to normal tissue is further constrained, treatments may consist of a larger number of beams, each delivering smaller doses (or monitor units, MU), in, e.g., volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) may be used to verify external beam treatments on integrated fractions as well as in a more time dependent manner such as field by field. For treatment verification performed during a fraction (e.g., individual fields or VMAT control points), the lower limit of EPID measurement capability becomes important. The authors quantified the signal and timing accuracy of EPID images for low MU intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and conformal fields.
METHODS: EPID images were collected from three different vendor's accelerators for low MU fields and compared to expected images. Simulations were performed to replicate the EPID acquisition pattern and to enhance the understanding of EPID readout schemes.
RESULTS: Large discrepancies between observed and predicted images were noted due to an under-response to single low MU fields. It is shown that a variability of up to 37% can be observed for low MU fields in clinically used EPID acquisition modes and that the majority of this variability can be accounted for by the readout scheme, integration, and timing of EPID acquisitions. Simulations have confirmed the causes of the discrepancies. The occurrence and extent of the variation has been estimated for clinical settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorrect absolute EPID signals collected for low MU fields in external beam treatments will negatively affect quantitative applications such as individual field based EPID dosimetry, typically appearing as an underdose, unless corrections to currently employed EPID readout schemes are made.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23231296     DOI: 10.1118/1.4761950

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


  6 in total

1.  A novel quality assurance procedure for trajectory log validation using phantom-less real-time latency corrected EPID images.

Authors:  Seng Boh Lim; Benjamin J Zwan; Danny Lee; Peter B Greer; Dale Michael Lovelock
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 2.102

2.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy dose verification using fluence and portal imaging device.

Authors:  Iori Sumida; Hajime Yamaguchi; Indra J Das; Hisao Kizaki; Keiko Aboshi; Mari Tsujii; Yuji Yamada; Osamu Suzuki; Yuji Seo; Fumiaki Isohashi; Kazuhiko Ogawa
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 2.102

3.  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

4.  Quality assurance of VMAT on flattened and flattening filter-free accelerators using a high spatial resolution detector.

Authors:  F S Matar; D Wilkinson; J Davis; G Biasi; T Causer; I Fuduli; O Brace; N Stansook; M Carolan; A B Rosenfeld; Marco Petasecca
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  An investigation of gantry angle data accuracy for cine-mode EPID images acquired during arc IMRT.

Authors:  Peter M McCowan; Daniel W Rickey; Pejman Rowshanfarzad; Peter B Greer; William Ansbacher; Boyd M McCurdy
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  Dose calibration of EPIDs for segmented IMRT dosimetry.

Authors:  Shrikant Deshpande; Aitang Xing; Lois Holloway; Peter Metcalfe; Philip Vial
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2014-11-08       Impact factor: 2.102

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.