Premium
An energy fluence‐convolution model for amorphous silicon EPID dose prediction
Author(s) -
Greer Peter B.,
Cadman Patrick,
Lee Christopher,
Bzdusek Karl
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.3058481
Subject(s) - image guided radiation therapy , optics , multileaf collimator , backscatter (email) , fluence , dosimetry , medical imaging , materials science , image resolution , calibration , physics , nuclear medicine , linear particle accelerator , beam (structure) , computer science , medicine , artificial intelligence , laser , telecommunications , quantum mechanics , wireless
In this work, an amorphous silicon electronic portal imaging device (a‐Si EPID) dose prediction model based on the energy fluence model of the Pinnacle treatment planning system Version 7 (Philips Medical Systems, Madison, WI) is developed. An energy fluence matrix at very high resolution ( < 1 mm ) is used to incorporate multileaf collimator (MLC) leaf effects in the predicted EPID images. The primary dose deposited in the EPID is calculated from the energy fluence using experimentally derived radially dependent EPID interaction coefficients. Separate coefficients are used for the open beam energy fluence component and the component of the energy fluence transmitted through closed MLC leaves to each EPID pixel. A spatially invariant EPID dose deposition kernel that describes both radiative dose deposition, central axis EPID backscatter, and optical glare is convolved with the primary dose. The kernel is further optimized to give accurate EPID penumbra prediction and EPID scatter factor with changing MLC field size. An EPID calibration method was developed to reduce the effect of nonuniform backscatter from the support arm (E‐arm) in a calibrated EPID image. This method removes the backscatter component from the pixel sensitivity (flood field) correction matrix retaining only field‐specific backscatter in the images. The model was compared to EPID images for jaw and MLC defined open fields and eight head and neck intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) fields. For the head and neck IMRT fields with 2%, 2 mm criteria 97.6 ± 0.6 % (mean ± 1 standard deviation) of points passed with a gamma index less than 1, and for 3%, 3 mm99.4 ± 0.4 % of points were within the criteria. For these fields, the 2%, 2 mm pass score reduced to 96.0 ± 1.5 % when backscatter was present in the pixel sensitivity correction matrix. The model incorporates the effect of MLC leaf transmission, EPID response to open and MLC leakage dose components, and accurately predicts EPID images of IMRT fields. Removing the backscatter component of the pixel sensitivity matrix correction reduces the effect of nonuniform E‐arm backscatter.