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. Wed . "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 = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}