Cargando…

Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging

PURPOSE: This work developed an x‐ray‐based method for performing factory quality assurance (QA) of Passive Radiotherapy Intensity Modulators for Electrons (PRIME) device fabrication. This method measures errors in position, diameter, and orientation of cylindrical island blocks on a hexagonal grid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McGuffey, Andrew S., Pitcher, Garrett M., Guidry, Rebecca L., Erhart, Kevin J., Hogstrom, Kenneth R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36855930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13943
_version_ 1785071694531002368
author McGuffey, Andrew S.
Pitcher, Garrett M.
Guidry, Rebecca L.
Erhart, Kevin J.
Hogstrom, Kenneth R.
author_facet McGuffey, Andrew S.
Pitcher, Garrett M.
Guidry, Rebecca L.
Erhart, Kevin J.
Hogstrom, Kenneth R.
author_sort McGuffey, Andrew S.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This work developed an x‐ray‐based method for performing factory quality assurance (QA) of Passive Radiotherapy Intensity Modulators for Electrons (PRIME) device fabrication. This method measures errors in position, diameter, and orientation of cylindrical island blocks on a hexagonal grid that comprises PRIME devices and the impact of such errors on the underlying intensity distribution. METHODS: X‐ray images were acquired of six PRIME devices, which modeled three error cases (small random, large random, and systematic errors) for two island block diameters (0.158 and 0.352 cm). Island blocks in each device, 0.6 cm long tungsten cylinders of constant diameter, were spaced 0.6 cm on a hexagonal grid over approximately 8 cm square. Using a 50 kVp x‐ray image, each island block projected a racetrack, whose perimeter was fit to a function that allowed determination of its position, diameter, and angular orientation (θ, ϕ). These measured parameters were input into a pencil beam algorithm (PBA) dose calculation performed in water (16 MeV, SSD = 103 cm) for each device. PBA calculated intensity distributions using measured and planned (exact) island block parameters were compared. RESULTS: Θ distributions for the 0.158 and 0.352 cm devices were nearly identical for each error case, with θ values for most island blocks being within 3.2°, 8.5°, and 7.5° for the small random, large random, and systematic error PRIME devices, respectively. Corresponding intensity differences between using measured and planned island block parameters were within 1.0% and 2.8% (small random), 2.2% and 4.8% (large random), and 3.2% and 6.7% (systematic) for the 0.158 and 0.352 cm devices, respectively. CONCLUSION: This approach provides a viable and economical method for factory QA of fabricated PRIME devices by determining errors in their planned intensity distribution from which their quality can be assessed prior to releasing to the customer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10338756
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103387562023-07-14 Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging McGuffey, Andrew S. Pitcher, Garrett M. Guidry, Rebecca L. Erhart, Kevin J. Hogstrom, Kenneth R. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics PURPOSE: This work developed an x‐ray‐based method for performing factory quality assurance (QA) of Passive Radiotherapy Intensity Modulators for Electrons (PRIME) device fabrication. This method measures errors in position, diameter, and orientation of cylindrical island blocks on a hexagonal grid that comprises PRIME devices and the impact of such errors on the underlying intensity distribution. METHODS: X‐ray images were acquired of six PRIME devices, which modeled three error cases (small random, large random, and systematic errors) for two island block diameters (0.158 and 0.352 cm). Island blocks in each device, 0.6 cm long tungsten cylinders of constant diameter, were spaced 0.6 cm on a hexagonal grid over approximately 8 cm square. Using a 50 kVp x‐ray image, each island block projected a racetrack, whose perimeter was fit to a function that allowed determination of its position, diameter, and angular orientation (θ, ϕ). These measured parameters were input into a pencil beam algorithm (PBA) dose calculation performed in water (16 MeV, SSD = 103 cm) for each device. PBA calculated intensity distributions using measured and planned (exact) island block parameters were compared. RESULTS: Θ distributions for the 0.158 and 0.352 cm devices were nearly identical for each error case, with θ values for most island blocks being within 3.2°, 8.5°, and 7.5° for the small random, large random, and systematic error PRIME devices, respectively. Corresponding intensity differences between using measured and planned island block parameters were within 1.0% and 2.8% (small random), 2.2% and 4.8% (large random), and 3.2% and 6.7% (systematic) for the 0.158 and 0.352 cm devices, respectively. CONCLUSION: This approach provides a viable and economical method for factory QA of fabricated PRIME devices by determining errors in their planned intensity distribution from which their quality can be assessed prior to releasing to the customer. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10338756/ /pubmed/36855930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13943 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
McGuffey, Andrew S.
Pitcher, Garrett M.
Guidry, Rebecca L.
Erhart, Kevin J.
Hogstrom, Kenneth R.
Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
title Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
title_full Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
title_fullStr Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
title_full_unstemmed Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
title_short Factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
title_sort factory quality assurance of passive radiotherapy intensity modulators for electrons using kilovoltage x‐ray imaging
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338756/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36855930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13943
work_keys_str_mv AT mcguffeyandrews factoryqualityassuranceofpassiveradiotherapyintensitymodulatorsforelectronsusingkilovoltagexrayimaging
AT pitchergarrettm factoryqualityassuranceofpassiveradiotherapyintensitymodulatorsforelectronsusingkilovoltagexrayimaging
AT guidryrebeccal factoryqualityassuranceofpassiveradiotherapyintensitymodulatorsforelectronsusingkilovoltagexrayimaging
AT erhartkevinj factoryqualityassuranceofpassiveradiotherapyintensitymodulatorsforelectronsusingkilovoltagexrayimaging
AT hogstromkennethr factoryqualityassuranceofpassiveradiotherapyintensitymodulatorsforelectronsusingkilovoltagexrayimaging