ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate fundamental aspects of the dose response of fluorescent screen-based electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We acquired scanned signal across portal planes as we varied the radiation that entered the EPID by changing the thickness and anatomy of the phantom as well as the air gap between the phantom and the EPID. In addition, we simulated the relative contribution of the scintillation light signal in the EPID system RESULTS: We have shown that the dose profile across portal planes is a function of the air gap and phantom thickness. We have also found that depending on the density change within the phantom geometry, errors associated with dose response based on the EPID scan can be as high as 7%. We also found that scintillation light scattering within the EPID system is an important source of error. CONCLUSION: This study revealed and demonstrated fundamental characteristics of dose response of EPID, as relative to that of ion chambers. This study showed that EPID based on fluorescent screen cannot be an accurate dosimetry system
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness of electronic portal imaging device through objective compare of the images acquired using an EPID and a conventional port film. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From Apr. to Oct. 1997, a total of 150 sets of images from 20 patients who received radiation therapy in the pelvis area were evaluated in the Inha University Hospital and Severance Hospital. A dual image recording technique was devised to obtain both electronic portal images and port film images simultaneously with one treatment course. We did not perform double exposure. Five to ten images were acquired from each patient. All images were acquired from posteroanterior (PA) view except images from two patients. A dose rate of 100-300 MU/min and a 10- MV X-ray beam were used and 2-10 MUs were required to produce a verification image during treatment. Kodak diagnostic film with metal/film imaging cassette which was located on the top of the EPID detector was used for the port film. The source to detector distance was 140 cm. Eight anatomical landmarks (pelvic brim, sacrum, acetabulum, iliopectineal line, symphysis, ischium, obturator foramen, sacroiliac joint) were assessed. Four radiation oncologist joined to evaluate each image. The individual landmarks in the port film or in the EPID were rated - very clear (1), clear (2), visible (3), not clear (4), not visible (5). RESULTS: Using an video camera based EPID system, there was no difference of image quality between no enhanced EPID images and port film images. However, when we provided some change with window level for the portal image, the visibility of the sacrum and obturator foramen was improved in the portal images than in the port film images. All anatomical landmarks were more visible in the portal images than in the port film when we applied the CLAHE mode enhancement. The images acquired using an matrix ion chamber type EPID were also improved image quality after window level adjustment. CONCLUSION: The quality of image acquired using an electronic portal imaging device was comparable to that of the port film. When we used the enhance mode or window level adjustment, the image quality of the EPID was superior to that of the port film. EPID may replace the port film.