Loading…

SU‐E‐T‐458: Instability of Electronic Portal Imaging Device Responses for Intensity Modulated Irradiation

Purpose: To investigate the response of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in integration mode for intensity modulated beams including step‐ and‐shoot (SS) and sliding window (SW) deliveries. Methods: We evaluated EPID dose response measurements of open, SS, and SW irradiations. We designed thr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medical Physics 2011-06, Vol.38 (6), p.3594-3594
Main Authors: Yeo, I, Jung, J, Yi, B, Piskulich, F, Choi, D, Nookala, P, Patyal, B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2172-e64c75929a5539aa11c269c07eb6f4b865e65ff6f9860b55a0a8b22cd475794d3
cites
container_end_page 3594
container_issue 6
container_start_page 3594
container_title Medical Physics
container_volume 38
creator Yeo, I
Jung, J
Yi, B
Piskulich, F
Choi, D
Nookala, P
Patyal, B
description Purpose: To investigate the response of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in integration mode for intensity modulated beams including step‐ and‐shoot (SS) and sliding window (SW) deliveries. Methods: We evaluated EPID dose response measurements of open, SS, and SW irradiations. We designed three beams using 6MV x‐rays with 10×10 cm2 field size. For the SS irradiation, two MLC leaves with 0.5 cm opening outside 10 × 10 cm2 were discontinuously moved by 10 cm during each segmental irradiation among ten segments of the entire delivery. For the SW beam, the same MLC leaves were continuously moved by 10 cm ten times during the delivery. The employment of the same open beam area ensures the same dose irradiation by the three. Monitor units were varied. We additionally investigated the dose linearity of EPID response. We used EPID‐ADU1000 operated with IAS3 system for the integrated acquisition. Results: The SS delivery showed a deviation greater than 2% from the open beam, if a segment employed less than 10 MUs. If it employed greater than 10 MUs, then a deviation less than 1% was observed. The SW delivery showed a maximum deviation of 1.4% at the lowest MU. The open beam irradiation showed linearity within 0.8%, the SW irradiation 1.2%, and the SS irradiation 1.7%. Conclusions: The SS delivery is associated with a greater error than the SW delivery due to beam instability at the start of acquisition and reading loss during MLC movement. Using large monitor units greater than 10 MUs/segment can minimize the deviation for the SS delivery from open beam. The linearity of EPID response to dose was better with the SW delivery than the SS delivery. This study will help understand dosimetric response of EPID for the SS delivery. This study was in part supported by Varian Medical Systems, Inc.
doi_str_mv 10.1118/1.3612412
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_3612412</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>MP2412</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2172-e64c75929a5539aa11c269c07eb6f4b865e65ff6f9860b55a0a8b22cd475794d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLFOwzAARC0EEqUw8AdeQUqxHduJ2VAJEKkVFbRz5Dh2ZZTGlW2KuvEJfCNfQkq7wnC65d1JdwBcYjTCGOc3eJRyTCgmR2BAaJYmlCBxDAYICZoQitgpOAvhDSHEU4YGwL0uvj-_il7zXpTlt7DsQpS1bW3cQmdg0WoVveusgjPno2xhuZJL2y3hvd5YpeGLDmvXBR2gcb5PR92FXXbqmvdWRt3A0nvZWBmt687BiZFt0BcHH4LFQzEfPyWT58dyfDdJFMEZSTSnKmOCCMlYKqTEWBEuFMp0zQ2tc840Z8ZwI3KOasYkknlNiGpoxjJBm3QIrva9yrsQvDbV2tuV9NsKo2r3VIWrw1M9m-zZD9vq7d9gNZ0d-Os9H5SNv6v-Kf8BY6h4hA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>SU‐E‐T‐458: Instability of Electronic Portal Imaging Device Responses for Intensity Modulated Irradiation</title><source>Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Read and Publish Open Access 2024-2025 (reading list)</source><creator>Yeo, I ; Jung, J ; Yi, B ; Piskulich, F ; Choi, D ; Nookala, P ; Patyal, B</creator><creatorcontrib>Yeo, I ; Jung, J ; Yi, B ; Piskulich, F ; Choi, D ; Nookala, P ; Patyal, B</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To investigate the response of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in integration mode for intensity modulated beams including step‐ and‐shoot (SS) and sliding window (SW) deliveries. Methods: We evaluated EPID dose response measurements of open, SS, and SW irradiations. We designed three beams using 6MV x‐rays with 10×10 cm2 field size. For the SS irradiation, two MLC leaves with 0.5 cm opening outside 10 × 10 cm2 were discontinuously moved by 10 cm during each segmental irradiation among ten segments of the entire delivery. For the SW beam, the same MLC leaves were continuously moved by 10 cm ten times during the delivery. The employment of the same open beam area ensures the same dose irradiation by the three. Monitor units were varied. We additionally investigated the dose linearity of EPID response. We used EPID‐ADU1000 operated with IAS3 system for the integrated acquisition. Results: The SS delivery showed a deviation greater than 2% from the open beam, if a segment employed less than 10 MUs. If it employed greater than 10 MUs, then a deviation less than 1% was observed. The SW delivery showed a maximum deviation of 1.4% at the lowest MU. The open beam irradiation showed linearity within 0.8%, the SW irradiation 1.2%, and the SS irradiation 1.7%. Conclusions: The SS delivery is associated with a greater error than the SW delivery due to beam instability at the start of acquisition and reading loss during MLC movement. Using large monitor units greater than 10 MUs/segment can minimize the deviation for the SS delivery from open beam. The linearity of EPID response to dose was better with the SW delivery than the SS delivery. This study will help understand dosimetric response of EPID for the SS delivery. This study was in part supported by Varian Medical Systems, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.3612412</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>Field size ; Image guided radiation therapy ; Multileaf collimators</subject><ispartof>Medical Physics, 2011-06, Vol.38 (6), p.3594-3594</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2011 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2172-e64c75929a5539aa11c269c07eb6f4b865e65ff6f9860b55a0a8b22cd475794d3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,23909,23910,25118,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yeo, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piskulich, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nookala, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patyal, B</creatorcontrib><title>SU‐E‐T‐458: Instability of Electronic Portal Imaging Device Responses for Intensity Modulated Irradiation</title><title>Medical Physics</title><description>Purpose: To investigate the response of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in integration mode for intensity modulated beams including step‐ and‐shoot (SS) and sliding window (SW) deliveries. Methods: We evaluated EPID dose response measurements of open, SS, and SW irradiations. We designed three beams using 6MV x‐rays with 10×10 cm2 field size. For the SS irradiation, two MLC leaves with 0.5 cm opening outside 10 × 10 cm2 were discontinuously moved by 10 cm during each segmental irradiation among ten segments of the entire delivery. For the SW beam, the same MLC leaves were continuously moved by 10 cm ten times during the delivery. The employment of the same open beam area ensures the same dose irradiation by the three. Monitor units were varied. We additionally investigated the dose linearity of EPID response. We used EPID‐ADU1000 operated with IAS3 system for the integrated acquisition. Results: The SS delivery showed a deviation greater than 2% from the open beam, if a segment employed less than 10 MUs. If it employed greater than 10 MUs, then a deviation less than 1% was observed. The SW delivery showed a maximum deviation of 1.4% at the lowest MU. The open beam irradiation showed linearity within 0.8%, the SW irradiation 1.2%, and the SS irradiation 1.7%. Conclusions: The SS delivery is associated with a greater error than the SW delivery due to beam instability at the start of acquisition and reading loss during MLC movement. Using large monitor units greater than 10 MUs/segment can minimize the deviation for the SS delivery from open beam. The linearity of EPID response to dose was better with the SW delivery than the SS delivery. This study will help understand dosimetric response of EPID for the SS delivery. This study was in part supported by Varian Medical Systems, Inc.</description><subject>Field size</subject><subject>Image guided radiation therapy</subject><subject>Multileaf collimators</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLFOwzAARC0EEqUw8AdeQUqxHduJ2VAJEKkVFbRz5Dh2ZZTGlW2KuvEJfCNfQkq7wnC65d1JdwBcYjTCGOc3eJRyTCgmR2BAaJYmlCBxDAYICZoQitgpOAvhDSHEU4YGwL0uvj-_il7zXpTlt7DsQpS1bW3cQmdg0WoVveusgjPno2xhuZJL2y3hvd5YpeGLDmvXBR2gcb5PR92FXXbqmvdWRt3A0nvZWBmt687BiZFt0BcHH4LFQzEfPyWT58dyfDdJFMEZSTSnKmOCCMlYKqTEWBEuFMp0zQ2tc840Z8ZwI3KOasYkknlNiGpoxjJBm3QIrva9yrsQvDbV2tuV9NsKo2r3VIWrw1M9m-zZD9vq7d9gNZ0d-Os9H5SNv6v-Kf8BY6h4hA</recordid><startdate>201106</startdate><enddate>201106</enddate><creator>Yeo, I</creator><creator>Jung, J</creator><creator>Yi, B</creator><creator>Piskulich, F</creator><creator>Choi, D</creator><creator>Nookala, P</creator><creator>Patyal, B</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201106</creationdate><title>SU‐E‐T‐458: Instability of Electronic Portal Imaging Device Responses for Intensity Modulated Irradiation</title><author>Yeo, I ; Jung, J ; Yi, B ; Piskulich, F ; Choi, D ; Nookala, P ; Patyal, B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2172-e64c75929a5539aa11c269c07eb6f4b865e65ff6f9860b55a0a8b22cd475794d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Field size</topic><topic>Image guided radiation therapy</topic><topic>Multileaf collimators</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yeo, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yi, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piskulich, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nookala, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patyal, B</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Medical Physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yeo, I</au><au>Jung, J</au><au>Yi, B</au><au>Piskulich, F</au><au>Choi, D</au><au>Nookala, P</au><au>Patyal, B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SU‐E‐T‐458: Instability of Electronic Portal Imaging Device Responses for Intensity Modulated Irradiation</atitle><jtitle>Medical Physics</jtitle><date>2011-06</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>3594</spage><epage>3594</epage><pages>3594-3594</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>Purpose: To investigate the response of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) in integration mode for intensity modulated beams including step‐ and‐shoot (SS) and sliding window (SW) deliveries. Methods: We evaluated EPID dose response measurements of open, SS, and SW irradiations. We designed three beams using 6MV x‐rays with 10×10 cm2 field size. For the SS irradiation, two MLC leaves with 0.5 cm opening outside 10 × 10 cm2 were discontinuously moved by 10 cm during each segmental irradiation among ten segments of the entire delivery. For the SW beam, the same MLC leaves were continuously moved by 10 cm ten times during the delivery. The employment of the same open beam area ensures the same dose irradiation by the three. Monitor units were varied. We additionally investigated the dose linearity of EPID response. We used EPID‐ADU1000 operated with IAS3 system for the integrated acquisition. Results: The SS delivery showed a deviation greater than 2% from the open beam, if a segment employed less than 10 MUs. If it employed greater than 10 MUs, then a deviation less than 1% was observed. The SW delivery showed a maximum deviation of 1.4% at the lowest MU. The open beam irradiation showed linearity within 0.8%, the SW irradiation 1.2%, and the SS irradiation 1.7%. Conclusions: The SS delivery is associated with a greater error than the SW delivery due to beam instability at the start of acquisition and reading loss during MLC movement. Using large monitor units greater than 10 MUs/segment can minimize the deviation for the SS delivery from open beam. The linearity of EPID response to dose was better with the SW delivery than the SS delivery. This study will help understand dosimetric response of EPID for the SS delivery. This study was in part supported by Varian Medical Systems, Inc.</abstract><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><doi>10.1118/1.3612412</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical Physics, 2011-06, Vol.38 (6), p.3594-3594
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_3612412
source Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Read and Publish Open Access 2024-2025 (reading list)
subjects Field size
Image guided radiation therapy
Multileaf collimators
title SU‐E‐T‐458: Instability of Electronic Portal Imaging Device Responses for Intensity Modulated Irradiation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T04%3A06%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SU%E2%80%90E%E2%80%90T%E2%80%90458:%20Instability%20of%20Electronic%20Portal%20Imaging%20Device%20Responses%20for%20Intensity%20Modulated%20Irradiation&rft.jtitle=Medical%20Physics&rft.au=Yeo,%20I&rft.date=2011-06&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=3594&rft.epage=3594&rft.pages=3594-3594&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.3612412&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3EMP2412%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2172-e64c75929a5539aa11c269c07eb6f4b865e65ff6f9860b55a0a8b22cd475794d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true