PURPOSE: We hypothesized that combining multiple amorphous silicon flat panel layers increases photon detection efficiency in an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), improving image quality and tracking accuracy of low-contrast targets during radiotherapy. METHODS: The prototype imager evaluated in this study contained four individually programmable layers each with a copper converter layer, Gd2 O2 S scintillator, and active-matrix flat panel imager (AMFPI). The imager was placed on a Varian TrueBeam linac and a Las Vegas phantom programmed with sinusoidal motion (peak-to-peak amplitude = 20 mm, period = 3.5 s) was imaged at a frame rate of 10 Hz with one to four layers activated. Number of visible circles and CNR of least visible circle (depth = 0.5 mm, diameter = 7 mm) was computed to assess the image quality of single and multiple layers. A previously validated tracking algorithm was employed for auto-tracking. Tracking error was defined as the difference between the programmed and tracked positions of the circle. Pearson correlation coefficient (R) of CNR and tracking errors was computed. RESULTS: Motion-induced blurring significantly reduced circle visibility. During four cycles of phantom motion, the number of visible circles varied from 11-23, 13-24, 15-25, and 16-26 for one-, two-, three-, and four-layer imagers, respectively. Compared with using only a single layer, combining two, three, and four layers increased the median CNR by factors of 1.19, 1.42, and 1.71, respectively and reduced the average tracking error from 3.32 mm to 1.67 mm to 1.47 mm, and 0.74 mm, respectively. Significant correlations (P~10-9 ) were found between the tracking error and CNR. CONCLUSION: Combination of four conventional EPID layers significantly improves the EPID image quality and tracking accuracy for a poorly visible object which is moving with a frequency and amplitude similar to respiratory motion.
PURPOSE: We hypothesized that combining multiple amorphous silicon flat panel layers increases photon detection efficiency in an electronic portal imaging device (EPID), improving image quality and tracking accuracy of low-contrast targets during radiotherapy. METHODS: The prototype imager evaluated in this study contained four individually programmable layers each with a copper converter layer, Gd2 O2 S scintillator, and active-matrix flat panel imager (AMFPI). The imager was placed on a Varian TrueBeam linac and a Las Vegas phantom programmed with sinusoidal motion (peak-to-peak amplitude = 20 mm, period = 3.5 s) was imaged at a frame rate of 10 Hz with one to four layers activated. Number of visible circles and CNR of least visible circle (depth = 0.5 mm, diameter = 7 mm) was computed to assess the image quality of single and multiple layers. A previously validated tracking algorithm was employed for auto-tracking. Tracking error was defined as the difference between the programmed and tracked positions of the circle. Pearson correlation coefficient (R) of CNR and tracking errors was computed. RESULTS: Motion-induced blurring significantly reduced circle visibility. During four cycles of phantom motion, the number of visible circles varied from 11-23, 13-24, 15-25, and 16-26 for one-, two-, three-, and four-layer imagers, respectively. Compared with using only a single layer, combining two, three, and four layers increased the median CNR by factors of 1.19, 1.42, and 1.71, respectively and reduced the average tracking error from 3.32 mm to 1.67 mm to 1.47 mm, and 0.74 mm, respectively. Significant correlations (P~10-9 ) were found between the tracking error and CNR. CONCLUSION: Combination of four conventional EPID layers significantly improves the EPID image quality and tracking accuracy for a poorly visible object which is moving with a frequency and amplitude similar to respiratory motion.
Authors: Haijian Chen; Joerg Rottmann; Stephen Sf Yip; Daniel Morf; Rony Füglistaller; Josh Star-Lack; George Zentai; Ross Berbeco Journal: Biomed Phys Eng Express Date: 2017-02-21
Authors: Pengpeng Zhang; Margie Hunt; Arina B Telles; Hai Pham; Michael Lovelock; Ellen Yorke; Guang Li; Laura Happersett; Andreas Rimner; Gig Mageras Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: T C Harris; J Seco; D Ferguson; M Lehmann; P Huber; M Shi; M Jacobson; I Valencia Lozano; M Myronakis; P Baturin; R Fueglistaller; D Morf; R Berbeco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: D Ferguson; T Harris; M Shi; M Jacobson; M Myronakis; M Lehmann; P Huber; D Morf; R Fueglistaller; P Baturin; I Valencia Lozano; C Williams; R Berbeco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: Shailaja Sajja; Young Lee; Markus Eriksson; Håkan Nordström; Arjun Sahgal; Masoud Hashemi; James G Mainprize; Mark Ruschin Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-07-30