No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Theoretical investigation of the design and performance of a dual energy (kV and MV) radiotherapy imager
2.N. Mail, D. Moseley, J. Siewerdsen, and D. Jaffray, “The influence of bowtie filtration on cone-beam CT image quality,” Med. Phys. 36, 22–32 (2009).
3.M. Aubin, O. Morin, J. Chen, A. Gillis, B. Pickett, J. Aubry, C. Akazawa, J. Speight, M. Roach III, and J. Pouliot, “The use of megavoltage cone-beam CT to complement CT for target definition in pelvic radiotherapy in the presence of hip replacement,” Br. J. Radiol. 79, 918–921 (2006).
4.O. Morin, J. Chen, M. Aubin, A. Gillis, J.-F. Aubry, S. Bose, H. Chen, M. Descovich, P. Xia, and J. Pouliot, “Dose calculation using megavoltage cone-beam CT,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 67, 1201–1210 (2007).
5.Y. El-Mohri, K.-W. Jee, L. E. Antonuk, M. Maolinbay, and Q. Zhao, “Determination of the detective quantum efficiency of a prototype, megavoltage indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imager,” Med. Phys. 28, 2538–2550 (2001);
6.B. A. Groh, J. H. Siewerdsen, D. G. Drake, J. W. Wong, and D. A. Jaffray, “A performance comparison of flat-panel imager-based MV and kV cone-beam CT,” Med. Phys. 29, 967–975 (2002).
7.E. C. Ford, J. Chang, K. Mueller, K. Sidhu, D. Todor, G. Mageras, E. Yorke, C. C. Ling, and H. Amols, “Cone-beam CT with megavoltage beams and an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device: Potential for verification of radiotherapy of lung cancer,” Med. Phys. 29, 2913–2924 (2002).
9.H. Keller, M. Glass, R. Hinderer, K. Ruchala, R. Jeraj, G. Olivera, and T. R. Mackie, “Monte Carlo study of a highly efficient gas ionization detector for megavoltage imaging and image-guided radiotherapy,” Med. Phys. 29, 165–175 (2002).
10.S. Rathee, D. Tu, T. T. Monajemi, D. W. Rickey, and B. G. Fallone, “A bench-top megavoltage fan-beam CT using CdWO4-photodiode detectors. I. System description and detector characterization,” Med. Phys. 33, 1078–1089 (2006).
11.S. S. Samant and A. Gopal, “Analysis of the kinestatic charge detection system as a high detective quantum efficiency electronic portal imaging device,” Med. Phys. 33, 3557–3567 (2006).
12.P. F. Kirvan, T. T. Monajemi, B. G. Fallone, and S. Rathee, “Performance characterization of a MVCT scanner using multislice thick, segmented cadmium tungstate-photodode detectors,” Med. Phys. 37, 249–257 (2010).
13.M. A. Mosleh-Shirazi, P. M. Evans, W. Swindell, J. R. N. Symonds-Tayler, S. Webb, and M. Partridge, “Rapid portal imaging with a high-efficiency, large field-of-view detector,” Med. Phys. 25, 2333–2346 (1998).
14.E. J. Seppi, P. Munro, S. W. Johnsen, E. G. Shapiro, C. Tognina, D. Jones, J. M. Pavkovich, C. Webb, I. Mollov, L. D. Partain, and R. E. Colbeth, “Megavoltage cone-beam computed tomography using a high-efficiency image receptor,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol., Biol., Phys. 55, 793–803 (2003).
15.A. Sawant, L. E. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, Y. Li, Z. Su, Y. Wang, J. Yamamoto, Q. Zhao, H. Du, and J. Daniel, “Segmented phosphors: Mems-based high quantum efficiency detectors for megavoltage x-ray imaging,” Med. Phys. 32, 553–565 (2005).
16.E. K. Breitbach, J. S. Maltz, B. Gangadharan, A. Bani-Hashemi, C. M. Anderson, S. K. Bhatia, J. Stiles, D. S. Edwards, and R. T. Flynn, “Image quality improvement in megavoltage cone beam CT using an imaging beam line and a sintered pixelated array system,” Med. Phys. 38, 5969–5979 (2011).
17.A. Sawant, L. E. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, Q. Zhao, Y. Wang, Y. Li, H. Du, and L. Perna, “Segmented crystalline scintillators: Empirical and theoretical investigation of a high quantum efficiency EPID based on an initial engineering prototype CsI(Tl) detector,” Med. Phys. 33, 1053–1066 (2006).
18.Y. Wang, L. E. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, Q. Zhao, A. Sawant, and H. Du, “Monte Carlo investigations of megavoltage cone-beam CT using thick, segmented scintillating detectors for soft tissue visualization,” Med. Phys. 35, 145–158 (2008).
19.Y. Wang, L. E. Antonuk, Q. Zhao, Y. El-Mohri, and L. Perna, “High-DQE EPIDs based on thick, segmented BGO and CsI: Tl scintillators: Performance evaluation at extremely low dose,” Med. Phys. 36, 5707–5718 (2009).
20.Y. Wang, L. E. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, and Q. Zhao, “A Monte Carlo investigation of Swank noise for thick, segmented, crystalline scintillators for radiotherapy imaging,” Med. Phys. 36, 3227–3238 (2009).
21.Y. El-Mohri, L. E. Antonuk, Q. Zhao, R. B. Choroszucha, H. Jiang, and L. Liu, “Low-dose megavoltage cone-beam CT imaging using thick, segmented scintillators,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 1509–1527 (2011).
22.L. Liu, L. E. Antonuk, Q. Zhao, Y. El-Mohri, and H. Jiang, “Countering beam divergence effects with focused segmented scintillators for high DQE megavoltage active matrix imagers,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 5343–5358 (2012).
23.Y. El-Mohri, L. E. Antonuk, R. B. Choroszucha, Q. Zhao, H. Jiang, and L. Liu, “Optimization of the performance of segmented scintillators for radiotherapy imaging through novel binning techniques,” Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 797–818 (2014).
24.L. Liu, L. E. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, Q. Zhao, and H. Jiang, “Optimization of the design of thick, segmented scintillators for megavoltage cone-beam CT using a novel, hybrid modeling technique,” Med. Phys. 41, 061916 (14pp.) (2014).
25.M. Weissbluth, C. Karzmark, R. Steele, and A. Selby, “The Stanford medical linear accelerator: II. Installation and physical measurements 1,” Radiology 72, 242–265 (1959).
26.H. Johns and J. Cunningham, “A precision cobalt 60 unit for fixed field and rotation therapy,” Am. J. Roentgenol., Radium Ther. Nucl. Med. 81, 4–12 (1959).
27.Y. Cho and P. Munro, “Kilovision: Thermal modeling of a kilovoltage x-ray source integrated into a medical linear accelerator,” Med. Phys. 29, 2101–2108 (2002).
29.B. A. Faddegon, V. Wu, J. Pouliot, B. Gangadharan, and A. Bani-Hashemi, “Low dose megavoltage cone beam computed tomography with an unflattened 4 MV beam from a carbon target,” Med. Phys. 35, 5777–5786 (2008).
30.J. L. Robar, T. Connell, W. Huang, and R. G. Kelly, “Megavoltage planar and cone-beam imaging with low-Z targets: Dependence of image quality improvement on beam energy and patient separation,” Med. Phys. 36, 3955–3963 (2009).
31.D. Roberts, V. Hansen, M. Thompson, G. Poludniowski, A. Niven, J. Seco, and P. Evans, “Kilovoltage energy imaging with a radiotherapy linac with a continuously variable energy range,” Med. Phys. 39, 1218–1226 (2012).
32.D. Parsons, J. L. Robar, and D. Sawkey, “A Monte Carlo investigation of low-Z target image quality generated in a linear accelerator using varian’s virtualinac,” Med. Phys. 41, 021719 (6pp.) (2014).
33.J. Rottmann, M. Aristophanous, A. Chen, L. Court, and R. Berbeco, “A multi-region algorithm for markerless beam’s-eye view lung tumor tracking,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 5585–5598 (2010).
34.F.-F. Yin, H. Guan, and W. Lu, “A technique for on-board CT reconstruction using both kilovoltage and megavoltage beam projections for 3D treatment verification,” Med. Phys. 32, 2819–2826 (2005).
35.T. Falco and B. G. Fallone, “Characteristics of metal-plate/film detectors at therapy energies. I. Modulation transfer function,” Med. Phys. 25, 2455–2462 (1998).
36.C. Kausch, B. Schreiber, F. Kreuder, R. Schmidt, and O. Dössel, “Monte Carlo simulations of the imaging performance of metal plate/phosphor screens used in radiotherapy,” Med. Phys. 26, 2113–2124 (1999).
37.J. Yorkston, L. E. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, K.-W. Jee, W. Huang, M. Maolinbay, X. Rong, J. H. Siewerdsen, and D. P. Trauernicht, “Improved spatial resolution in flat-panel imaging systems,” Proc. SPIE 3336, 556–563 (1998).
38.Y. El-Mohri, L. E. Antonuk, Q. Zhao, Y. Wang, Y. Li, H. Du, and A. Sawant, “Performance of a high fill factor, indirect detection prototype flat-panel imager for mammography,” Med. Phys. 34, 315–327 (2007).
39.F. H. Attix, Introduction to Radiological Physics and Radiation Dosimetry (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co., Weinheim, 2004).
40.K. Sato, F. Nariyuki, H. Nomura, A. Takasu, S. Fukui, M. Nakatsu, Y. Okada, T. Nabeta, and Y. Hosoi, “Effect of x-ray incident direction and scintillator layer design on image quality of indirect-conversion flat-panel detector with GOS phosphor,” Proc. SPIE 7961, 79614I (2011).
41.S. Rivetti, N. Lanconelli, M. Bertolini, A. Nitrosi, and A. Burani, “Characterization of a clinical unit for digital radiography based on irradiation side sampling technology,” Med. Phys. 40, 101902 (11pp.) (2013).
42.I. Kawrakow and D. W. O. Rogers, “The EGSnrc code system: Monte carlo simulation of electron and photon transport,” Technical Report No. PIRS–701 (National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 2000).
43.I. Kawrakow, “egspp: The EGSnrc c++ class library,” Technical Report No. PIRS-899 (National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 2005).
44.J. M. Boone and J. A. Seibert, “An accurate method for computer-generating tungsten anode x-ray spectra from 30 to 140 kV,” Med. Phys. 24, 1661–1670 (1997).
45.D. Sheikh-Bagheri, Ph.D. thesis,Carleton University, Ottawa, 1999.
47.M. Maolinbay, Y. El-Mohri, L. Antonuk, K.-W. Jee, S. Nassif, X. Rong, and Q. Zhao, “Additive noise properties of active matrix flat-panel imagers,” Med. Phys. 27, 1841–1854 (2000).
48.P. A. Tipler and G. Mosca, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6 ed. (Freeman, W. H. & Company, New York, NY, 2007).
49.L. E. Antonuk, Q. Zhao, Y. El-Mohri, H. Du, Y. Wang, R. A. Street, J. Ho, R. Weisfield, and W. Yao, “An investigation of signal performance enhancements achieved through innovative pixel design across several generations of indirect detection, active matrix, flat-panel arrays,” Med. Phys. 36, 3322–3339 (2009).
50.M. Maolinbay, T. Zimmerman, R. Yarema, L. Antonuk, Y. El-Mohri, and M. Yeakey, “Design and performance of a low noise, 128-channel ASIC preamplifier for readout of active matrix flat-panel imaging arrays,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 485, 661–675 (2002).
51.M. F. Fast, T. Koenig, U. Oelfke, and S. Nill, “Performance characteristics of a novel megavoltage cone-beam-computed tomography device,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57, N15–N24 (2012).
52.H. Fujita, D. Tsai, T. Itoh, K. Doi, J. Morishita, K. Ueda, and A. Ohtsuka, “A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 11, 34–39 (1992).
54.W. Zhao, G. Ristic, and J. A. Rowlands, “X-ray imaging performance of structured cesium iodide scintillators,” Med. Phys. 31, 2594–2605 (2004).
56.Y. Wang, Y. El-Mohri, L. E. Antonuk, and Q. Zhao, “Monte Carlo investigations of the effect of beam divergence on thick, segmented crystalline scintillators for radiotherapy imaging,” Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 3659–3673 (2010).
57.R. A. Street, W. S. Wong, and R. Lujan, “Curved electronic pixel arrays using a cut and bend approach,” J. Appl. Phys. 105, 104504 (2009).
Article metrics loading...
In modern radiotherapy treatment rooms, megavoltage (MV) portal imaging and kilovoltage (kV) cone-beam CT
imaging are performed using various active matrix flat-panel imager (AMFPI) designs. To expand the clinical utility of MV and kV imaging, MV AMFPIs incorporating thick, segmented scintillators and, separately, kV imaging using a beam’s eye view geometry have been investigated by a number of groups. Motivated by these previous studies, it is of interest to explore to what extent it is possible to preserve the benefits of kV and MV imaging using a single AMFPI design, given the considerably different x ray energy spectra used for kV and MV imaging. In this paper, considerations for the design of such a dual energy imager are explored through examination of the performance of a variety of hypothetical AMFPIs based on x ray converters employing segmented scintillators.
noise, and contrast-to-noise ratio performances were characterized through simulation modeling of CBCT
imaging, while modulation transfer function, Swank factor, and signal performance were characterized through simulation modeling of planar imaging. The simulations were based on a previously reported hybrid modeling technique (accounting for both radiation and optical effects), augmented through modeling of electronic additive noise. All designs employed BGO scintillator material with thicknesses ranging from 0.25 to 4 cm and element-to-element pitches ranging from 0.508 to 1.016 mm. A series of studies were performed under both kV and MV imaging conditions to determine the most advantageous imager configuration (involving front or rear x ray illumination and use of a mirror or black reflector), converter design (pitch and thickness), and operating mode (pitch-binning combination).
Under the assumptions of the present study, the most advantageous imager design was found to employ rear illumination of the converter in combination with a black reflector, incorporate a BGO converter with a 0.508 mm pitch and a 2 cm thickness, and operate at full resolution for kV imaging and 2 × 2 binning mode for MV imaging. Such a dual energy imager design should provide soft tissue visualization at low, clinically practical doses under MV conditions, while helping to preserve the high spatial resolution and high contrast offered by kV imaging.
The authors’ theoretical investigation suggests that a dual energy imager capable of largely preserving the desirable characteristics of both kV and MV imaging is feasible. Such an imager, when coupled to a dual energy radiation source, could facilitate simplification of current treatment room imaging systems (as well as their associated quality assurance), and facilitate more precise integration of kV and MV imaging information by virtue of reduced geometric uncertainties.
Full text loading...
Most read this month