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

Title: SU-F-J-26: Performance of 2.5MV Portal Imaging in Comparison with KV X-Ray and 6MV and Flattening-Filter-Free 6MV Portal Imaging

Abstract

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 assessed 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 substantiallymore » 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

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22632161
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; BRAIN; CHEST; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; ELECTRON DIFFRACTION; HEAD; IMAGES; NECK; PATIENTS; PELVIS; PERFORMANCE; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSES; REVIEWS

Citation Formats

Duan, J, Yang, Y, Faught, A, Subashi, E, Wu, Q, and Yin, F. SU-F-J-26: Performance of 2.5MV Portal Imaging in Comparison with KV X-Ray and 6MV and Flattening-Filter-Free 6MV Portal Imaging. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955934.
Duan, J, Yang, Y, Faught, A, Subashi, E, Wu, Q, & Yin, F. SU-F-J-26: Performance of 2.5MV Portal Imaging in Comparison with KV X-Ray and 6MV and Flattening-Filter-Free 6MV Portal Imaging. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955934.
Duan, J, Yang, Y, Faught, A, Subashi, E, Wu, Q, and Yin, F. 2016. "SU-F-J-26: Performance of 2.5MV Portal Imaging in Comparison with KV X-Ray and 6MV and Flattening-Filter-Free 6MV Portal Imaging". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955934.
@article{osti_22632161,
title = {SU-F-J-26: Performance of 2.5MV Portal Imaging in Comparison with KV X-Ray and 6MV and Flattening-Filter-Free 6MV Portal Imaging},
author = {Duan, J and Yang, Y and Faught, A and Subashi, E and Wu, Q and Yin, F},
abstractNote = {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 assessed 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.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955934},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: To compare the dosimetric difference of volumetric modulated arc therapy(VMAT) for preoperative radiotherapy rectal cancer using 6MV X-ray flattening filter free(FFF) and flattening filter(FF) modes. Methods: FF-VMAT and FFF-VMAT plans were designed to 15 rectal cancer patients with preoperative radiotherapy by planning treatment system(Eclipse 10.0),respectively. Dose prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. All plans were normalized to 50 Gy to 95% of PTV. The Dose Volume Histogram (DVH), target and risk organ doses, conformity indexes (CI), homogeneity indexes (HI), low dose volume of normal tissue(BP), monitor units(MU) and treatment time (TT) were compared between the two kinds ofmore » plans. Results: FF-VMAT provided the lower Dmean, V105, HI, and higher CI as compared with FFF-VMAT. The small intestine of D5, Bladder of D5, Dmean, V40, V50, L-femoral head of V40, R-femoral head of Dmean were lower in FF-VMAT than in FFF-VMAT. FF-VMAT had higher BP of V5, but no significantly different of V10, V15, V20, V30 as compared with FFF-VMAT. FF-VMAT reduceed the monitor units(MU) by 21%(P<0.05), as well as the treatment time(TT) was no significantly different(P>0.05), as compared with FFF-VMAT. Conclusion: The plan qualities of FF and FFF VMAT plans were comparable and both clinically acceptable. FF-VMAT as compared with FFF-VMAT, showing better target coverage, some of OARs sparing, the MUs of FFF-VMAT were higher than FF-VMAT, yet were delivered within the same time. This work was supported by the Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Procvince (A2014455 to Changchun Ma)« less
  • Purpose: To demonstrate the feasibility of portal dosimetry with an amorphous silicon mega voltage imager for flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams by means of the GLAaS methodology and to validate it for pretreatment quality assurance of volumetric modulated arc therapy (RapidArc).Methods: The GLAaS algorithm, developed for flattened beams, was applied to FFF beams of nominal energy of 6 and 10 MV generated by a Varian TrueBeam (TB). The amorphous silicon electronic portal imager [named mega voltage imager (MVI) on TB] was used to generate integrated images that were converted into matrices of absorbed dose to water. To enable GLAaSmore » use under the increased dose-per-pulse and dose-rate conditions of the FFF beams, new operational source-detector-distance (SDD) was identified to solve detector saturation issues. Empirical corrections were defined to account for the shape of the profiles of the FFF beams to expand the original methodology of beam profile and arm backscattering correction. GLAaS for FFF beams was validated on pretreatment verification of RapidArc plans for three different TB linacs. In addition, the first pretreatment results from clinical experience on 74 arcs were reported in terms of γ analysis.Results: MVI saturates at 100 cm SDD for FFF beams but this can be avoided if images are acquired at 150 cm for all nominal dose rates of FFF beams. Rotational stability of the gantry-imager system was tested and resulted in a minimal apparent imager displacement during rotation of 0.2 ± 0.2 mm at SDD = 150 cm. The accuracy of this approach was tested with three different Varian TrueBeam linacs from different institutes. Data were stratified per energy and machine and showed no dependence with beam quality and MLC model. The results from clinical pretreatment quality assurance, provided a gamma agreement index (GAI) in the field area for six and ten FFF beams of (99.8 ± 0.3)% and (99.5 ± 0.6)% with distance to agreement and dose difference criteria set to 3 mm/3% with 2 mm/2% thresholds, GAI resulted (95.7.0 ± 2.3)% and (97.2 ± 2.1)%.Conclusions: The GLAaS methodology, introduced in clinical practice for conventional flattened photon beams for machine, IMRT, and RapidArc quality assurance, was successfully adapted for FFF beams of Varian TrueBeam Linac. The detector saturation effects could be eliminated if the portal images acquired at 150 cm for all nominal dose rates of FFF beams.« less
  • Purpose: To implement and validate a method of using electronic portal image device (EPID) for pre-treatment quality assurance (QA) of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans using flattering filter free (FFF) beams for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Methods: On Varian Edge with 6MV FFF beam, open field (from 2×2 cm to 20×20 cm) EPID images were acquired with 200 monitor unit (MU) at the image device to radiation source distance of 150cm. With 10×10 open field and calibration unit (CU) provided by vendor to EPID image pixel, a dose conversion factor was determined by dividing the center dose calculated frommore » the treatment planning system (TPS) to the corresponding CU readout on the image. Water phantom measured beam profile and the output factors for various field sizes were further correlated to those of EPID images. The dose conversion factor and correction factors were then used for converting the portal images to the planner dose distributions of clinical fields. A total of 28 VMAT fields of 14 SBRT plans (8 lung, 2 prostate, 2 liver and 2 spine) were measured. With 10% low threshold cutoff, the delivered dose distributions were compared to the reference doses calculated in water phantom from the TPS. A gamma index analysis was performed for the comparison in percentage dose difference/distance-to-agreement specifications. Results: The EPID device has a linear response to the open fields with increasing MU. For the clinical fields, the gamma indices between the converted EPID dose distributions and the TPS calculated 2D dose distributions were 98.7%±1.1%, 94.0%±3.4% and 70.3%±7.7% for the criteria of 3%/3mm, 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm, respectively. Conclusion: Using a portal image device, a high resolution and high accuracy portal dosimerty was achieved for pre-treatment QA verification for SBRT VMAT plans with FFF beams.« less
  • Purpose: Varian’s electronic portal imaging device (EPID) based portal dosimetry tool is a popular and effective means of performing IMRT QA. EPIDs for older models of the TrueBeam accelerator utilize a 40cmx30cm Image Detection Unit (IDU) that saturates at the center for standard source to imager distances with high dose rate flattening filter free (FFF) beams. This makes portal dosimetry not possible and an alternative means of IMRT QA necessary. We developed a filter that would attenuate the beam to a dose rate measureable by the IDU for portal dosimetry IMRT QA. Methods: Multipurpose 304 stainless steel plates were placedmore » on an accessory tray to attenuate the beam. Profiles of an open field measured on the IDU were acquired with varying number of plates to assess the thickness needed to reduce the maximum dose rates of 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams to measurable levels. A new portal dose image prediction (PDIP) model was commissioned based on open field measurements with plates in position, and a modified beam profile was input to portal dosimetry calibration at the console to empirically correct for attenuation and scatter. The portal dosimetry tool was used to assess agreement between predicted and measured doses for open 25×25cm{sup 2} fields and intensity modulated fields using 6XFFF and 10XFFF beams. Results: Thicknesses of 2.5cm and 3.8cm of steel were required to reduce the highest dose rates to a measureable level for 6XFFF and 10XFFF, respectively. Gamma analysis using a 3%/3mm relative criterion with the filter in place and using the new PDIP model resulted in 98.2% and 93.6% of pixels passing while intensity modulated fields showed passing rates of 98.2% and 99.0%. Conclusion: Use of the filter allows for portal dosimetry to be used for IMRT QA of FFF plans in place of purchasing a second option for IMRT QA.« less
  • Purpose: The purpose of this study is to access VMAT-SABR plan using flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter-free (FFF) beam, and compare the verification results for all pretreatment plans. Methods: SABR plans for 20 prostate patients were optimized in the Eclipse treatment planning system. A prescription dose was 42.7 Gy/7 fractions. Four SABR plans for each patient were calculated using Acuros XB algorithm with both FF and FFF beams of 6- and 10-MV. The dose-volume histograms (DVH) and technical parameters were recorded and compared. A pretreatment verification was performed and the gamma analysis was used to quantify the agreement betweenmore » calculations and measurements. Results: For each patient, the DVHs are closely similar for plans of four different beams. There are small differences showed in dose distributions and corresponding DVHs when comparing the each plan related to the same patient. Sparing on bladder and rectum was slightly better on plans with 10-MV FF and FFF than with 6-MV FF and FFF, but this difference was negligible. However, there was no significance in the other OARs. The mean agreement of 3%/3mm criteria was higher than 97% in all plans. The mean MUs and deliver time employed was 1701±101 and 3.02±0.17 min for 6-MV FF, 1870±116 and 1.69±0.08 min for 6-MV FFF, 1471±86 and 2.68±0.14 min for 10-MV FF, and 1619±101 and 0.98±0.04 min for 10-MV FFF, respectively. Conclusion: Dose distributions on prostate SABR plans using FFF beams were similar to those generated by FF beams. However, the use of FFF beam offers a clear benefit in delivery time when compared to FF beam. Verification of pretreatment also represented the acceptable and comparable results in all plans using FF beam as well as FFF beam. Therefore, this study suggests that the use of FFF beam is feasible and efficient technique for prostate SABR.« less