skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-J-14: A Comparison of a 2.5MV Imaging Beam to KV and 6MV Imaging Beams

Abstract

Purpose: To compare image quality metrics and dose of TrueBeam V2.0’s 2.5MV imaging beam and kV and 6MV images. Methods: To evaluate the MV image quality, the Standard Imaging QC-3 and Varian Las Vegas (LV) phantoms were imaged using the ‘quality’ and ‘low dose’ modes and then processed using RIT113 V6.3. The LEEDS phantom was used to evaluate the kV image quality. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) was also evaluated in patient images using Matlab. In addition, dose per image was evaluated at a depth of 5cm using solid water for a 28.6 cm × 28.6 cm field size, which is representative of the largest jaw settings at an SID of 150cm. Results: The 2.5MV images had lower dose than the 6 MV images and a contrast to noise ratio (CNR) about 1.4 times higher, when evaluated using the QC-3. When energy was held constant but dose varied, the different modes, ‘low dose’ and ‘quality’, showed less than an 8% difference in CNR. The ‘quality’ modes demonstrated better spatial resolution than the ‘low dose’; however, even with the ‘low dose’ all line pairs were distinct except for the 0.75lp/mm on the 2.5MV. The LV phantom was used to measuremore » low contrast detectability and showed similar results to the QC-3. Several patient images all confirmed that SNR were highest in kV images followed by 2.5MV and then 6MV. Qualitatively, for anatomical areas with large variability in thickness, like lateral head and necks, 2.5MV images show more anatomy, such as shoulder position, than kV images. Conclusions: The kV images clearly provide the best image metrics per unit dose. The 2.5MV beam showed excellent contrast at a lower dose than 6MV and may be superior to kV for difficult to image areas that include large changes in anatomical thickness. P Balter: Varian, Sun Nuclear, Philips, CPRIT.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1]
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22494043
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; ELECTRON DIFFRACTION; IMAGES; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSES; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; THICKNESS

Citation Formats

Nitsch, P, Robertson, D, and Balter, P. SU-E-J-14: A Comparison of a 2.5MV Imaging Beam to KV and 6MV Imaging Beams. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924102.
Nitsch, P, Robertson, D, & Balter, P. SU-E-J-14: A Comparison of a 2.5MV Imaging Beam to KV and 6MV Imaging Beams. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924102.
Nitsch, P, Robertson, D, and Balter, P. Mon . "SU-E-J-14: A Comparison of a 2.5MV Imaging Beam to KV and 6MV Imaging Beams". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924102.
@article{osti_22494043,
title = {SU-E-J-14: A Comparison of a 2.5MV Imaging Beam to KV and 6MV Imaging Beams},
author = {Nitsch, P and Robertson, D and Balter, P},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To compare image quality metrics and dose of TrueBeam V2.0’s 2.5MV imaging beam and kV and 6MV images. Methods: To evaluate the MV image quality, the Standard Imaging QC-3 and Varian Las Vegas (LV) phantoms were imaged using the ‘quality’ and ‘low dose’ modes and then processed using RIT113 V6.3. The LEEDS phantom was used to evaluate the kV image quality. The signal to noise ratio (SNR) was also evaluated in patient images using Matlab. In addition, dose per image was evaluated at a depth of 5cm using solid water for a 28.6 cm × 28.6 cm field size, which is representative of the largest jaw settings at an SID of 150cm. Results: The 2.5MV images had lower dose than the 6 MV images and a contrast to noise ratio (CNR) about 1.4 times higher, when evaluated using the QC-3. When energy was held constant but dose varied, the different modes, ‘low dose’ and ‘quality’, showed less than an 8% difference in CNR. The ‘quality’ modes demonstrated better spatial resolution than the ‘low dose’; however, even with the ‘low dose’ all line pairs were distinct except for the 0.75lp/mm on the 2.5MV. The LV phantom was used to measure low contrast detectability and showed similar results to the QC-3. Several patient images all confirmed that SNR were highest in kV images followed by 2.5MV and then 6MV. Qualitatively, for anatomical areas with large variability in thickness, like lateral head and necks, 2.5MV images show more anatomy, such as shoulder position, than kV images. Conclusions: The kV images clearly provide the best image metrics per unit dose. The 2.5MV beam showed excellent contrast at a lower dose than 6MV and may be superior to kV for difficult to image areas that include large changes in anatomical thickness. P Balter: Varian, Sun Nuclear, Philips, CPRIT.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924102},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}
  • Purpose: To assess image quality and imaging dose of 2.5MV electronic portal imaging in comparison to kV imaging and 6MV and Flattening-Filter-Free 6MV (6MVFFF) portal imaging using a DMI imager. Methods: Quantitative assessment of image quality was performed with Leeds and Las Vegas test phantoms in conjunction with qualitative evaluation of clinical patient images for kV imaging and 2.5MV, 6MV and 6MVFFF portal imaging. High and low contrast resolutions were evaluated and imaging doses were measured using these x-rays. Phantom test was performed both in air and in solid water. Clinical patient portal images were also reviewed and qualitatively assessedmore » for these three imaging MV energies. Results: Among the 28 objects in Las Vegas phantom, 16, 17 and 26 of them were resolved using Low Dose technique and 18, 22 and 26 were resolved using High Quality technique with 6MV, 6MVFFF and 2.5MV, respectively. The number of Leeds low contrast objects resolved by 6MV, 6MFFFF and 2.5MV was 6, 15 and 18 with Low Dose technique and 14, 17 and 18 with High Quality technique, respectively. When the test phantoms were embedded in 20cm thick solid water, the results were noticeably affected, but the performance of 2.5MV was still substantially better than 6MV and 6MVFFF. Imaging dose with 2.5MV measured at 10 cm depth was about half of that with 6MV or 6MVFFF. Clinical patient portal images were reviewed and qualitatively assessed for different sites including brain, head-and-neck, chest and pelvis. 2.5MV imaging provided more details and substantially higher contrast. Conclusion: While portal imaging with 6MVFFF provides noticeably better image quality than that with 6MV, the performance of 2.5MV portal imaging is substantially better than both 6MV and 6MVFFF in terms of high and low contrast resolutions as well as lower imaging dose. 2.5MV imaging provides near kV imaging quality.« less
  • Purpose: Varian TrueBeam version 2.0 comes with a new inline 2.5MV beam modality for image guided patient setup. In this work we develop an iterative volumetric image reconstruction technique specific to the beam and investigate the possibility of obtaining metal artifact free CBCT images using the new imaging modality. Methods: An iterative reconstruction algorithm with a sparse representation constraint based on dictionary learning is developed, in which both sparse projection and low dose rate (10 MU/min) are considered. Two CBCT experiments were conducted using the newly available 2.5MV beam on a Varian TrueBeam linac. First, a Rando anthropomorphic head phantommore » with and without a copper bar inserted in the center was scanned using both 2.5MV and kV (100kVp) beams. In a second experiment, an MRI phantom with many coils was scanned using 2.5MV, 6MV, and kV (100kVp) beams. Imaging dose and the resultant image quality is studied. Results: Qualitative assessment suggests that there were no visually detectable metal artifacts in MV CBCT images, compared with significant metal artifacts in kV CBCT images, especially in the MRI phantom. For a region near the metal object in the head phantom, the 2.5MV CBCT gave a more accurate quantification of the electron density compared with kV CBCT, with a ∼50% reduction in mean HU error. As expected, the contrast between bone and soft-tissue in 2.5MV CBCT decreased compared with kV CBCT. Conclusion: On-board CBCT imaging with the new 2.5MV beam can effectively reduce metal artifacts, although with a reduced softtissue contrast. Combination of kV and MV scanning may lead to metal artifact free CBCT images with uncompromised soft-tissue contrast.« less
  • Purpose: Integrating a linac with an MRI system would allow for real time tumour tracking however the patient will be irradiated in the presence of a magnetic field. The present study experimentally investigates the magnetic field effects on entrance, exit, and interface dose for both transverse and parallel magnetic fields. Methods: Polystyrene was used to construct a set of phantoms for Gafchromic film measurements. One phantom had an adjustable air gap and four other phantoms had one surface at various angles. The linac-MR prototype consisting of a biplanar permanent magnet coupled to a linac was used for the transverse magneticmore » field measurements. A couple of solenoid electromagnets, stacked on top of each other and irradiated along their bore, were used for the parallel field measurements. Results: All doses are relative to no magnetic field. The transverse magnetic field reduced the entrance dose for all surface angles by strongly deflecting the contaminant electrons. The exit dose in a transverse magnetic field was found to be significantly higher. The entrance dose with a parallel magnetic field present is higher due to the contaminant electrons being concentrated within the beam area. The air gap phantom measurements, done in a transverse magnetic field, show a significant increase of the dose at the proximal side of the air gap and a decrease at the distal side. The measurements, done in the parallel magnetic field, show the concentration of secondary electrons in the air gap. Conclusion: The radiation dose measurements of a 6MV beam in a parallel and transverse magnetic field presented here are currently being replicated using Monte Carlo simulations. This verified Monte Carlo system could provide the dose calculation basis for future linac-MR systems.« less
  • Purpose: In order to perform real time tumour tracking using an integrated Linac-MR, images have to be acquired during irradiation. MRI uses RF coils in close proximity to the imaged volume. Given current RF coil designs this means that the high energy photons will be passing through the coil before reaching the patient. This study experimentally investigates the dose modifications that occur due to the presence of various RF coil materials in the treatment beam. Methods: Polycarbonate, copper or aluminum tape, and Teflon were used to emulate the base, conductor and cover respectively of a surface RF coil. These materialsmore » were placed at various distances from the surface of polystyrene or solid water phantoms which were irradiated in the presence of no magnetic field, a transverse 0.2T magnetic field, and a parallel 0.2T magnetic field. Percent depth doses were measured using ion chambers. Results: A significant increase in surface and buildup dose is observed. The surface dose is seen to decrease with an increasing separation between the emulated coil and the phantom surface, when no magnetic field is present. When a transverse magnetic field is applied the surface dose decreases faster with increasing separation, as some of the electrons created in the coil are curved away from the phantom’s surface. When a parallel field is present the surface dose stays approximately constant for small separations, only slightly decreasing for separations greater than 5cm, since the magnetic field focuses the electrons produced in the coil materials not allowing them to scatter. Conclusion: Irradiating a patient through an RF coil leads to an increase in the surface and buildup doses. Mitigating this increase is important for the successful clinical use of either a transverse or a parallel configuration Linac-MR unit. This project is partially supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR MOP 93752)« less
  • Purpose: To examine the accuracy of measured tissue phantom ratios (TPR) values with TPR calculated from percentage depth dose (PDD) with and without peak scatter fraction (PSF) correction. Methods: For 6MV open beam, TPR and PDD values were measured using PTW Semiflex (31010) ionization field and reference chambers (0.125cc volume) in a PTW MP3-M water tank. PDD curves were measured at SSD of 100cm for 7 square fields from 3cm to 30cm. The TPR values were measured up to 22cm depth for the same fields by continuous water draining method with ionization chamber static at 100cm from source. A comparisonmore » study was performed between the (a) measured TPR, (b) TPR calculated from PDD without PSF, (c) TPR calculated from PDD with PSF and (d) clinical TPR from RadCalc (ver 6.2, Sun Nuclear Corp). Results: There is a field size, depth dependence on TPR values. For 10cmx10cm, the differences in surface dose (DDs), dose at 10cm depth (DD10) <0.5%; differences in dmax (Ddmax) <2mm for the 4 methods. The corresponding values for 30cmx30cm are DDs, DD10 <0.2% and Ddmax<3mm. Even though for 3cmx3cm field, DDs and DD10 <1% and Ddmax<1mm, the calculated TPR values with and without PSF correction differed by 2% at >20cm depth. In all field sizes at depths>28cm, (d) clinical TPR values are larger than that from (b) and (c) by >3%. Conclusion: Measured TPR in method (a) differ from calculated TPR in methods (b) and (c) to within 1% for depths < 28cm in all 7 fields in open 6MV beam. The dmax values are within 3mm of each other. The largest deviation of >3% was observed in clinical TPR values in method (d) for all fields at depths < 28cm.« less