Premium
SU‐E‐J‐33: Geometric Agreement Check for Imaging System with Radiation Beam by KV and MV‐CBCT
Author(s) -
Saotome N,
Kida S,
Haga A,
Masutani Y,
Ohtomo K,
Nakagawa K
Publication year - 2012
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 - 10.1118/1.4734866
Subject(s) - isocenter , image guided radiation therapy , physics , cone beam computed tomography , nuclear medicine , rotation (mathematics) , medical imaging , optics , imaging phantom , geometry , mathematics , computer science , artificial intelligence , medicine , computed tomography , radiology
Purpose: The verification method of the geometry agreement between a light field and/or a laser coordinate and treatment beam should be easy and quick. In this presentation, we propose a novel QA method by using both kV‐ and MV‐CBCT for kV‐IGRT system. This method confirms the temporal unchanging the agreement of geometry in the kV‐IGRT system with the treatment beam geometry. Methods: 1) MV‐flexmap: Sequential MV‐projection images were acquired during gantry rotation by iViewGT (Elekta) and MV‐CBCT was reconstructed by in‐house software with a flexmap correction. The flexmap is displacement of gantry and detector panel related with gantry sag. The geometric change affects the deranging reconstructed image. To evaluate how much displacement of EPID panel and gantry was detectable, the images of 8mm diameter ball‐bearing (BB) located at the radiation isocenter were reconstructed with improper Flexmap.2) A comparison between the kV‐CBCT and the MV‐CBCT: The kV‐CBCT was provided by X‐ray Volume image (XVI) system (Elekta). To confirm the agreement for the geometry between kV‐IGRT system and treatment beam, the kV‐CBCTs of BB are compared with that of MV‐CBCTs. Results: The flexmaps were modified to (b)1mm / (c)3mm shifted to the rotation direction and (d)3mm to the rotation axis. The MV‐CBCT were reconstructed with the correct flexmap and with incorrect flexmap (b), (c) and (d).　The geometric confirmation for MV‐CBCT was done by comparison of the width and center of the BB on the MV‐CBCT. The discrepancy of center between kV‐CBCT and MV‐CBCT was less than 1mm. Conclusions: Less than 1mm of the geometrical changing to rotation direction for MV‐detector panel could be recognized by reconstructed images of BB. Using kV‐ and MV‐CBCT enable us to perform the simple comparison for geometrical non‐idealities between the kV‐IGRT system and the treatment beam. Dr. K. Nakagawa received research grant from Elekta.