Cargando…

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(®)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pesznyák, Csilla, Polgár, István, Weisz, Csaba, Király, Réka, Zaránd, Pál
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Versita, Warsaw 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3423718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22933938
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10019-010-0052-6
_version_ 1782241136037855232
author Pesznyák, Csilla
Polgár, István
Weisz, Csaba
Király, Réka
Zaránd, Pál
author_facet Pesznyák, Csilla
Polgár, István
Weisz, Csaba
Király, Réka
Zaránd, Pál
author_sort Pesznyák, Csilla
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3423718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Versita, Warsaw
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34237182012-08-29 Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy Pesznyák, Csilla Polgár, István Weisz, Csaba Király, Réka Zaránd, Pál Radiol Oncol Research Article 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. Versita, Warsaw 2010-12-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3423718/ /pubmed/22933938 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10019-010-0052-6 Text en Copyright © by Association of Radiology & Oncology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Pesznyák, Csilla
Polgár, István
Weisz, Csaba
Király, Réka
Zaránd, Pál
Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
title Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
title_full Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
title_fullStr Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
title_full_unstemmed Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
title_short Verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
title_sort verification of quality parameters for portal images in radiotherapy
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3423718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22933938
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10019-010-0052-6
work_keys_str_mv AT pesznyakcsilla verificationofqualityparametersforportalimagesinradiotherapy
AT polgaristvan verificationofqualityparametersforportalimagesinradiotherapy
AT weiszcsaba verificationofqualityparametersforportalimagesinradiotherapy
AT kiralyreka verificationofqualityparametersforportalimagesinradiotherapy
AT zarandpal verificationofqualityparametersforportalimagesinradiotherapy