Cargando…
Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy
PURPOSE: Current techniques and procedures for dosimetry in microbeams typically rely on radiochromic film or small volume ionization chambers for validation and quality assurance in 2D and 1D, respectively. Whilst well characterized for clinical and preclinical radiotherapy, these methods are nonin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7078942/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31837272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13971 |
_version_ | 1783507723656101888 |
---|---|
author | Flynn, Samuel Price, Tony Allport, Philip P. Silvestre Patallo, Ileana Thomas, Russell Subiel, Anna Bartzsch, Stefan Treibel, Franziska Ahmed, Mabroor Jacobs‐Headspith, Jon Edwards, Tim Jones, Isaac Cathie, Dan Guerrini, Nicola Sedgwick, Iain |
author_facet | Flynn, Samuel Price, Tony Allport, Philip P. Silvestre Patallo, Ileana Thomas, Russell Subiel, Anna Bartzsch, Stefan Treibel, Franziska Ahmed, Mabroor Jacobs‐Headspith, Jon Edwards, Tim Jones, Isaac Cathie, Dan Guerrini, Nicola Sedgwick, Iain |
author_sort | Flynn, Samuel |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Current techniques and procedures for dosimetry in microbeams typically rely on radiochromic film or small volume ionization chambers for validation and quality assurance in 2D and 1D, respectively. Whilst well characterized for clinical and preclinical radiotherapy, these methods are noninstantaneous and do not provide real time profile information. The objective of this work is to determine the suitability of the newly developed vM1212 detector, a pixelated CMOS (complementary metal‐oxide‐semiconductor) imaging sensor, for in situ and in vivo verification of x‐ray microbeams. METHODS: Experiments were carried out on the vM1212 detector using a 220 kVp small animal radiation research platform (SARRP) at the Helmholtz Centre Munich. A 3 x 3 cm(2) square piece of EBT3 film was placed on top of a marked nonfibrous card overlaying the sensitive silicon of the sensor. One centimeter of water equivalent bolus material was placed on top of the film for build‐up. The response of the detector was compared to an Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner using FilmQA Pro with triple channel dosimetry. This was also compared to a separate exposure using 450 µm of silicon as a surrogate for the detector and a Zeiss Axio Imager 2 microscope using an optical microscopy method of dosimetry. Microbeam collimator slits with range of nominal widths of 25, 50, 75, and 100 µm were used to compare beam profiles and determine sensitivity of the detector and both film measurements to different microbeams. RESULTS: The detector was able to measure peak and valley profiles in real‐time, a significant reduction from the 24 hr self‐development required by the EBT3 film. Observed full width at half maximum (FWHM) values were larger than the nominal slit widths, ranging from 130 to 190 µm due to divergence. Agreement between the methods was found for peak‐to‐valley dose ratio (PVDR), peak to peak separation and FWHM, but a difference in relative intensity of the microbeams was observed between the detectors. CONCLUSIONS: The investigation demonstrated that pixelated CMOS sensors could be applied to microbeam radiotherapy for real‐time dosimetry in the future, however the relatively large pixel pitch of the vM1212 detector limit the immediate application of the results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7078942 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70789422020-03-19 Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy Flynn, Samuel Price, Tony Allport, Philip P. Silvestre Patallo, Ileana Thomas, Russell Subiel, Anna Bartzsch, Stefan Treibel, Franziska Ahmed, Mabroor Jacobs‐Headspith, Jon Edwards, Tim Jones, Isaac Cathie, Dan Guerrini, Nicola Sedgwick, Iain Med Phys COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY PURPOSE: Current techniques and procedures for dosimetry in microbeams typically rely on radiochromic film or small volume ionization chambers for validation and quality assurance in 2D and 1D, respectively. Whilst well characterized for clinical and preclinical radiotherapy, these methods are noninstantaneous and do not provide real time profile information. The objective of this work is to determine the suitability of the newly developed vM1212 detector, a pixelated CMOS (complementary metal‐oxide‐semiconductor) imaging sensor, for in situ and in vivo verification of x‐ray microbeams. METHODS: Experiments were carried out on the vM1212 detector using a 220 kVp small animal radiation research platform (SARRP) at the Helmholtz Centre Munich. A 3 x 3 cm(2) square piece of EBT3 film was placed on top of a marked nonfibrous card overlaying the sensitive silicon of the sensor. One centimeter of water equivalent bolus material was placed on top of the film for build‐up. The response of the detector was compared to an Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner using FilmQA Pro with triple channel dosimetry. This was also compared to a separate exposure using 450 µm of silicon as a surrogate for the detector and a Zeiss Axio Imager 2 microscope using an optical microscopy method of dosimetry. Microbeam collimator slits with range of nominal widths of 25, 50, 75, and 100 µm were used to compare beam profiles and determine sensitivity of the detector and both film measurements to different microbeams. RESULTS: The detector was able to measure peak and valley profiles in real‐time, a significant reduction from the 24 hr self‐development required by the EBT3 film. Observed full width at half maximum (FWHM) values were larger than the nominal slit widths, ranging from 130 to 190 µm due to divergence. Agreement between the methods was found for peak‐to‐valley dose ratio (PVDR), peak to peak separation and FWHM, but a difference in relative intensity of the microbeams was observed between the detectors. CONCLUSIONS: The investigation demonstrated that pixelated CMOS sensors could be applied to microbeam radiotherapy for real‐time dosimetry in the future, however the relatively large pixel pitch of the vM1212 detector limit the immediate application of the results. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-01-06 2020-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7078942/ /pubmed/31837272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13971 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY Flynn, Samuel Price, Tony Allport, Philip P. Silvestre Patallo, Ileana Thomas, Russell Subiel, Anna Bartzsch, Stefan Treibel, Franziska Ahmed, Mabroor Jacobs‐Headspith, Jon Edwards, Tim Jones, Isaac Cathie, Dan Guerrini, Nicola Sedgwick, Iain Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
title | Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
title_full | Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
title_short | Evaluation of a pixelated large format CMOS sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
title_sort | evaluation of a pixelated large format cmos sensor for x‐ray microbeam radiotherapy |
topic | COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSIMETRY |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7078942/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31837272 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mp.13971 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT flynnsamuel evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT pricetony evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT allportphilipp evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT silvestrepatalloileana evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT thomasrussell evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT subielanna evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT bartzschstefan evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT treibelfranziska evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT ahmedmabroor evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT jacobsheadspithjon evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT edwardstim evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT jonesisaac evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT cathiedan evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT guerrininicola evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy AT sedgwickiain evaluationofapixelatedlargeformatcmossensorforxraymicrobeamradiotherapy |