
Quality assurance and long‐term stability of a novel 3‐in‐1 X‐ray system for brachytherapy
Author(s) -
Karius Andre,
Szkitsak Juliane,
Boronikolas Vasilios,
Fietkau Rainer,
Bert Christoph
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
journal of applied clinical medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.83
H-Index - 48
ISSN - 1526-9914
DOI - 10.1002/acm2.13727
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , quality assurance , fluoroscopy , image quality , cone beam computed tomography , digital radiography , nuclear medicine , brachytherapy , flat panel detector , radiography , materials science , medical physics , medicine , computer science , optics , detector , radiology , radiation therapy , computer vision , computed tomography , physics , external quality assessment , pathology , image (mathematics)
Purpose A novel, mobile 3‐in‐1 X‐ray system featuring radiography, fluoroscopy, and cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been launched for brachytherapy recently. Currently, there is no quality assurance (QA) procedure explicitly applicable to this system equipped with innovative technologies such as dynamic jaws and motorized lasers. We developed a dedicated QA procedure and, based on its performance for a duration of 6 months, provide an assessment of the device's stability over time. Methods With the developed QA procedure, we assessed the system's planar and CBCT‐imaging performance by investigating geometric accuracy, CT‐number stability, contrast‐noise‐ratio, uniformity, spatial resolution, low‐contrast detectability, dynamic range, and X‐ray exposure using dedicated phantoms. Furthermore, we evaluated geometric stability by using the flexmap‐approach and investigated the device's laser‐ and jaw‐positioning accuracy with an in‐house test phantom. CBCT‐ and planar‐imaging protocols for pelvis, breast, and abdomen imaging were examined. Results Planar‐ and CBCT‐imaging performances were widely stable with a geometric accuracy ≤1 mm, CT‐number stability of up to 46 HU, and uniformity variations of up to 48 HU over time. For planar imaging, low‐contrast detectability and dynamic range exceeded current recommendations. Although geometric stability was considered tolerable, partly substantial positioning inaccuracies of up to more than 120 mm and −13 mm were obtained for lasers and jaws, respectively. X‐ray exposure showed small variations of ≤0.56 μGy and ≤0.76 mGy for planar‐ and CBCT‐imaging, respectively. The conductance of the QA procedure allowed a smooth evaluation of the system's overall performance. Conclusion We developed a QA workflow for a novel 3‐in‐1 X‐ray system allowing to assess the device's imaging and hardware performance. The system showed in general a reasonable imaging performance and stability over time, whereas improvements regarding laser and jaw accuracy are strictly required.