Cargando…

Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification

In this study, we evaluated the use of aS500 EPID for the verification of IMRT beam delivery, using the synchronous, frame‐averaging acquisition. In this approach, an EPID continuously integrates frames while irradiated by an IMRT field; the averaged image is then converted to a dose profile using a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chang, J., Ling, C. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i4.2499
_version_ 1783285364380663808
author Chang, J.
Ling, C. C.
author_facet Chang, J.
Ling, C. C.
author_sort Chang, J.
collection PubMed
description In this study, we evaluated the use of aS500 EPID for the verification of IMRT beam delivery, using the synchronous, frame‐averaging acquisition. In this approach, an EPID continuously integrates frames while irradiated by an IMRT field; the averaged image is then converted to a dose profile using a linear calibration curve, and is compared with the planned profiles using a linear‐regression model, which returns an index σ (root mean squared error) for the goodness of fit. We identified several potential errors in this acquisition mode: missing data between the start of irradiation and imaging, and from the last (incomplete) frame, which we proved are insignificant for IMRT fields; and EPID dead time during irradiation stemming from data transfer, which we successfully corrected for clinical [Formula: see text]. We compared the measured relative profiles and central axis dose of 25 prostate fields with the planned ones. Applying our correction methods, very good agreement was obtained between the measured and planned profiles with a mean a of 1.9% and a standard deviation of 0.5%; for central‐axis dose the agreement was better than 2.0%. We conclude that the aS500 is an effective tool for verification of IM beam delivery in the range of clinical [Formula: see text] settings. Although the vender is developing an upgrade to fix similar problems, our results demonstrate that the current configuration with simple correction schemes can achieve satisfactory results. PACS number(s): 87.53.Oq, 87.53.Xd
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5724460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57244602018-04-02 Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification Chang, J. Ling, C. C. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics In this study, we evaluated the use of aS500 EPID for the verification of IMRT beam delivery, using the synchronous, frame‐averaging acquisition. In this approach, an EPID continuously integrates frames while irradiated by an IMRT field; the averaged image is then converted to a dose profile using a linear calibration curve, and is compared with the planned profiles using a linear‐regression model, which returns an index σ (root mean squared error) for the goodness of fit. We identified several potential errors in this acquisition mode: missing data between the start of irradiation and imaging, and from the last (incomplete) frame, which we proved are insignificant for IMRT fields; and EPID dead time during irradiation stemming from data transfer, which we successfully corrected for clinical [Formula: see text]. We compared the measured relative profiles and central axis dose of 25 prostate fields with the planned ones. Applying our correction methods, very good agreement was obtained between the measured and planned profiles with a mean a of 1.9% and a standard deviation of 0.5%; for central‐axis dose the agreement was better than 2.0%. We conclude that the aS500 is an effective tool for verification of IM beam delivery in the range of clinical [Formula: see text] settings. Although the vender is developing an upgrade to fix similar problems, our results demonstrate that the current configuration with simple correction schemes can achieve satisfactory results. PACS number(s): 87.53.Oq, 87.53.Xd John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2003-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5724460/ /pubmed/14604418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i4.2499 Text en © 2003 The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Chang, J.
Ling, C. C.
Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification
title Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification
title_full Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification
title_fullStr Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification
title_full_unstemmed Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification
title_short Using the frame averaging of aS500 EPID for IMRT verification
title_sort using the frame averaging of as500 epid for imrt verification
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i4.2499
work_keys_str_mv AT changj usingtheframeaveragingofas500epidforimrtverification
AT lingcc usingtheframeaveragingofas500epidforimrtverification