Vol. 8, 2023

Medical Physics


Nektarios Kalyvas, Marios K. Tzomakas, Vasiliki Peppa, Antigoni Alexiou, Georgios Karakatsanis, Anastasios Episkopakis, Christos Michail, Ioannis Valais, George Fountos, Ioannis S. Kandarakis

Pages: 1-4

DOI: 10.37392/RapProc.2023.01

Electronic Portal Imaging Systems (EPIDs) are used in Radiotherapy treatment as part of the patient positioning verification check and for portal dosimetry purposes. The quality control of the imaging performance of an EPID is performed with dedicated phantoms. In this work, an examination through Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is presented in order to determine an appropriate step wedge phantom configuration for measuring low contrast differences in EPIDs. The PENELOPE based MC software package PenEasy was used. A simple geometry of a narrow cone beam with a cross section of 0.00053 cm2 at 100 cm distance was assumed. A 2 MeV beam was considered to impinge on a 4 cm water equivalent phantom in conjunction with a metal sheet of Pb, Al, Fe or W positioned at 80 cm distance. At 100 cm distance a Gd2O2S:Tb scintillator, as part of an EPID responsible for detecting X-rays was assumed. The Gd2O2S:Tb thicknesses considered were 0.02cm and 0.03 cm. All the metal thicknesses were allowed to range from 0.1 cm to 1.5 cm per 0.1 cm step. The optical photons escaping to the Gd2O2S:Tb output were calculated by an analytical formula for each metal thickness. Hence, if a wedge metallic pattern from 0.1 cm to 1.5 cm is assumed to be constructed, then the optical photon output originating from each step, as well as the signal contrast between two steps would be known. It was found that a combination of Pb, Fe and W materials can be used for a step wedge phantom design.
  1. S. -H. Baek et al., “Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance,” Life, vol. 12, no. 11, 1923, Nov. 2022.
    DOI: 10.3390/life12111923
    PMid: 36431058
    PMCid: PMC9694583
  2. L. E. Antonuk, “Electronic portal imaging devices: a review and historical perspective of contemporary technologies and research,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 47, no. 6, pp. R31 – R65, Mar. 2002.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/47/6/201
    PMid: 11936185
  3. C. K. McGarry, M. W. D. Grattan, V. P. Cosgrove, “Optimization of image quality and dose for Varian aS500 electronic portal imaging (EPIDs),” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 52, no. 23, pp. 6865 – 6877, Dec. 2007.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/23/006
    PMid: 18029980
  4. A. Mans et al., “3D Dosimetric verification of volumetric-modulated arc therapy by portal dosimetry,” Radiother. Oncol., vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 181 – 187, Feb. 2010.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.020
    PMid: 20089323
  5. K. Ślosarek et al., “Portal dosimetry in radiotherapy repeatability evaluation,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 156 – 164, Jan. 2021.
    DOI: 10.1002/acm2.13123
    PMid: 33314643
    PMCid: PMC7856497
  6. W. van Elmpt et al., “A literature review of electronic portal imaging for radiotherapy dosimetry,” Radiother. Oncol., vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 289 – 309, Sep. 2008.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.07.008
    PMid: 18706727
  7. L. C. G. G, Persoon et al., “Interfractional trend analysis of dose differences based on 2D transit portal dosimetry,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 57, no. 20, pp. 6445 – 6458, Oct. 2012.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/20/6445
    PMid: 23001452
  8. I. Olaciregui-Ruiz, R. Rozendaal, B. Mijnheer, M. van Herk, A. Mans, “Automated in vivo portal dosimetry of all treatments,” Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 58, no. 22, pp. 8253 – 8264, Nov. 2013.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/22/8253
    PMid: 24201085
  9. F. Cremers et al., “Performance of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) used in radiotherapy: image quality and dose measurements,” Med. Phys. , vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 985 – 996, May 2004.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.1688212
    PMid: 15191282
  10. S. Y. Son et al., “Evaluation of image quality for various electronic portal imaging devices in radiation therapy,” J. Radiol. Sci. Technol. , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 451 – 461, Dec. 2015.
    DOI: 10.17946/JRST.2015.38.4.16
  11. B. K. Rout, M. C. Shekar, A. Kumar, K. K. D. Ramesh, “Quality control test for electronic portal imaging device using QC-3 phantom with PIPSpro,” Int. J. Cancer Ther. Oncol., vol. 2, no. 4, 02049, Sep. 2014.
    DOI: 10.14319/ijcto.0204.9
  12. I. J. Das et al., “A quality assurance phantom for electronic portal imaging devices,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 391 – 403, Feb. 2011.
    DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v12i2.3350
    PMid: 21587179
    PMCid: PMC5718680
  13. I. J. Das, F. Salvat, PENELOPE: a Code system for Monte Carlo simulation of electron and photon transport , OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France, 2015.
    Retrieved from: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-01/nsc-doc2015-3.pdf
    Retrieved on: Jun. 12, 2023
  14. J. Sempau, E. Acosta, J. Baro, J. M. Fernández-Varea, F. Salvat, “An algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of coupled electron-photon transport,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B, vol. 132, no. 3, pp. 377 – 390, Nov. 1997.
    DOI: 10.1016/S0168-583X(97)00414-X
  15. J. Baro, J. Sempau, J. M. Fernández-Varea, F. Salvat, “PENELOPE: An algorithm for Monte Carlo simulation of the penetration and energy loss of electrons and positrons in matter,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B , vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 31 – 46, May 1995.
    DOI: 10.1016/0168-583X(95)00349-5
  16. C. M. Michail et al., “Experimental and theoretical evaluation of a high resolution CMOS based Detector under X-ray imaging conditions,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 314 – 322, Feb. 2011.
    DOI: 10.1109/TNS.2010.2094206
  17. J. Sempau, A. Badal, L. Brualla, “A PENELOPE-based system for the automated Monte Carlo simulation of clinacs and voxelized geometries-application to far-from-axis fields,” Med. Phys., vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 5887 – 5895, Nov. 2011.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.3643029
    PMid: 22047353
  18. I. Kandarakis, D. Cavouras, G. S. Panayiotakis, C. D. Nomicos, “Evaluating x-ray detectors for radiographic applications: a comparison of ZnSCdS:Ag with Gd2O2S:Tb and Y2O2S:Tb screens,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1351 – 1373, Jul. 1997.
    DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/42/7/009
    PMid: 9253044
  19. N. Kalyvas, P. Liaparinos, “Analytical and Monte Carlo comparisons on the optical transport mechanisms of powder phosphors,” Opt. Mater., vol. 88, pp. 396 – 405, Feb. 2019.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.optmat.2018.12.006
  20. NIST Physical Measurement Laboratory Elemental Data Index: X-ray Form Factor, Attenuation and Scattering Tables , NIST, Gaithersburg (MD), USA.
    Retrieved from: https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Elements/index.html
    Retrieved on: Jun. 15, 2023
  21. D. Parsons, J. L. Robar, “The effect of copper conversion plates on low Z target image quality,” Med. Phys.,vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 5362 – 5371, Sep. 2012
    DOI: 10.1118/1.4742052
    PMid: 22957604
  22. A. Kosunen, D. W. Rogers, “Beam quality specification for photon beam dosimetry,” Med. Phys.,vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1181 – 1188, Jul. 1993.
    DOI: 10.1118/1.597150
    PMid: 8413028