Verification of prostate treatment setup using computed radiography for portal imaging

Contrast Enhancement for Portal Imaging in Nanoparticle-Enhanced Radiotherapy: A Monte Carlo Phantom Evaluation Using Flattening-Filter-Free Photon Beams

Our team evaluated contrast enhancement for portal imaging using Monte Carlo simulation in nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy. Dependencies of percentage contrast enhancement on flattening-filter (FF) and flattening-filter-free (FFF) photon beams were determined by varying the nanoparticle material (gold, platinum, iodine, silver, iron oxide), nanoparticle concentration (3–40 mg/mL) and photon beam energy (6 and 10 MV). Phase-space files and energy spectra of the 6 MV FF, 6 MV FFF, 10 MV FF and 10 MV FFF photon beams were generated based on a Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator. We found that gold and platinum nanoparticles (NP) produced the highest contrast enhancement for portal imaging, compared to other NP with lower atomic numbers. The maximum percentage contrast enhancements for the gold and platinum NP were 18.9% and 18.5% with a concentration equal to 40 mg/mL. The contrast enhancement was also found to increase with the nanoparticle concentration. The maximum rate of increase of contrast enhancement for the gold NP was equal to 0.29%/mg/mL. Using the 6 MV photon beams, the maximum contrast enhancements for the gold NP were 79% (FF) and 78% (FFF) higher than those using the 10 MV beams. For the FFF beams, the maximum contrast enhancements for the gold NP were 53.6% (6 MV) and 53.8% (10 MV) higher than those using the FF beams. It is concluded that contrast enhancement for portal imaging can be increased when a higher atomic number of NP, higher nanoparticle concentration, lower photon beam energy and no flattening filter of photon beam are used in nanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapy.

A simple quality assurance test tool for the visual verification of light and radiation field congruent using electronic portal images device and computed radiography

BACKGROUND

The radiation field on most megavoltage radiation therapy units are shown by a light field projected through the collimator by a light source mounted inside the collimator. The light field is traditionally used for patient alignment. Hence it is imperative that the light field is congruent with the radiation field.

METHOD

A simple quality assurance tool has been designed for rapid and simple test of the light field and radiation field using electronic portal images device (EPID) or computed radiography (CR). We tested this QA tool using Varian PortalVision and Elekta iViewGT EPID systems and Kodak CR system.

RESULTS

Both the single and double exposure techniques were evaluated, with double exposure technique providing a better visualization of the light-radiation field markers. The light and radiation congruency could be detected within 1 mm. This will satisfy the American Association of Physicists in Medicine task group report number 142 recommendation of 2 mm tolerance.

CONCLUSION

The QA tool can be used with either an EPID or CR to provide a simple and rapid method to verify light and radiation field congruence.

Effectiveness of the single-shot dual-energy subtraction technique for portal images

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the single‐shot dual‐energy subtraction technique for obtaining portal images. We prepared two storage phosphor plates for this study. A 1 mm thick tungsten sheet was placed between the two storage phosphor plates. A single use of the double‐exposure technique provides two portal images simultaneously (i.e., a standard image and a low‐contrast image), using the same patient position and with no additional radiation delivered to the patient. A bone‐enhanced image is created by image subtraction between these two images. For evaluation of clinical efficacy, three treatment sites — the brain, lung, and pelvis — were imaged. Ten sets of images were obtained for each site, and five landmarks were selected for each treatment site. The visibility of each landmark and the ease of overall verification for the selected treatment sites were assessed separately for the standard and bone‐enhanced images. Four observers consisting of one radiation oncologist and three radiation therapists participated in the present study. For most of the landmarks studied, the bone‐enhanced images were significantly superior to the standard images. Regarding the ease of overall verification, the bone‐enhanced images were significantly superior to the standard images at all sites. The p‐values of mean rating for the brain, lung, and pelvis were 0.002, 0.012, and 0.003, respectively. The bone‐enhanced images obtained using our technique increased the image quality in terms of bone visibility, and are considered useful for routine clinical practice.

PACS number: 87.56.Da

Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy

Background

The purpose of the study was to verify different values of quality parameters of portal images in radiotherapy.

Materials and methods

We investigated image qualities of different field verification systems. Four EPIDs (Siemens OptiVue500aSi^®, Siemens BeamView Plus^®, Elekta iView^® and Varian PortalVision™) were investigated with the PTW EPID QC PHANTOM^® and compared with two portal film systems (Kodak X-OMAT^® cassette with Kodak X-OMAT V^® film and Kodak EC-L Lightweight^® cassette with Kodak Portal Localisation ReadyPack^® film).

Results

A comparison of the f50 and f25 values of the modulation transfer functions (MTFs) belonging to each of the systems revealed that the amorphous silicon EPIDs provided a slightly better high contrast resolution than the Kodak Portal Localisation ReadyPack^® film with the EC-L Lightweight^® cassette. The Kodak X-OMAT V^® film gave a poor low contrast resolution: from the existing 27 holes only 9 were detectable.

Conclusions

On the base of physical characteristics, measured in this work, the authors suggest the use of amorphous-silicon EPIDs producing the best image quality. Parameters of the EPIDs with scanning liquid ionisation chamber (SLIC) were very stable. The disadvantage of older versions of EPIDs like SLIC and VEPID is a poor DICOM implementation, and the modulation transfer function (MTF) values (f50 and f25) are less than that of aSi detectors.

Evaluation of Inter-fractional Setup Shifts for Site-specific Helical Tomotherapy Treatments

This paper proposes to summarize and analyze the daily patient setup shifts based on megavoltage computed tomography (MVCT) image registration results for Helical TomoTherapy® (HT) treatment. One hundred and fifty-five consecutive treatment plans for a total of 137 patients delivered by the HT unit through one year were collected in this study. The patient data included pelvis (26%), abdomen (23%), lung (21%), head and neck (10%), prostate (8%), and others (12%). All the translational and roll rotational shifts made via auto MVCT and kilovoltage computed tomography (kVCT) image registration were recorded at each fraction. Manual fine-tuning was followed if automatic registration result was not satisfactory. The mean shift ± one standard deviation (1 SD) was calculated for each patient based on the entire treatment course. For each treatment site, the average shift was analyzed as well as displacement in 3D vector. Statistical tests were performed to analyze the relationship of patient-specific, tumor site-specific, and fraction number association with the patient setup shifts. For all the treatment sites, the largest average shift was found in the anterior-posterior direction. The population standard deviations were between 1.2 and 5.6 mm for the X, Y, and Z directions and ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 degrees for the roll rotational correction. The largest standard deviations of the setup reproducibility in X, Y, and Z directions were found in lung patients (4.2 mm), abdomen, lung and spine patients (4.4 mm), and prostate patients (5.6 mm), respectively. The maximum 3D displacement was 10.9 mm for prostate patients' setup. ANOVA tests demonstrated the setup shifts were statistically different between patients even for those that were treated at the same tumor site in the translational directions. No strong correlation between the setup and the fraction number was found. In conclusion, the MVCT guided function in the HT treatment enables us to generate relatively accurate daily setup through registration with KVCT data sets. Our results indicate that lung, prostate, and abdominal patients are more prone to setup uncertainty and should be carefully evaluated.

Dose optimisation during imaging in radiotherapy

The desire to increase the precision in radiotherapy delivery has led to the development of advanced imaging systems such as amorphous silicon (a-Si)-based electronic portal imaging, and kV and MV cone beam CT. These are used prior to the delivery of radiation to visualise the organ to be treated and to ensure that the patient setup and treatment delivery are accurate. However, little attention has been given to the dose received by adjacent normal tissues during these imaging procedures. Though these doses are very small compared to the dose delivered during radiotherapy, the involvement of normal tissues and the concern that these could increase the probability of stochastic effect, mainly the induction of secondary malignancy, cannot be ignored. This article reviews some work on the doses received during imaging in radiotherapy and the methods to optimise the same.