Electronic and film portal images

A comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy

Jon J. Kruse, Michael G. Herman, Chris R. Hagness, Brian J. Davis, Yolanda Isabel Garces, Michael Haddock, Kenneth R. Olivier, Scott L. Stafford, Thomas M. Pisansky

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To quantitatively compare a scanning liquid ion chamber electronic portal imaging device (SLIC-EPID) and an amorphous silicon flat panel (aSi) EPID with portal film in clinical applications using measures of landmark visibility and treatment review accuracy. Methods and Materials: Six radiation oncologists viewed 39 electronic portal images (EPIs) from the SLIC-EPID, 36 EPIs from the aSi-EPID, and portal films of each of these treatment fields. The physicians rated the clarity of anatomic landmarks in the portal images, and the scores were compared between EPID and film. Nine hundred portal image reviews were performed. EPID and film portal images were acquired with known setup errors in either phantom or cadaver treatments. Physicians identified the errors visually in portal films and with computerized analysis for EPID. Results: There were no statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between film and SLIC-EPID in ratings of landmark clarity. Eleven of 12 landmarks were more visible in aSi-EPID than in film. Translational setup errors were identified with an average accuracy of 2.5 mm in film, compared to 1.5 mm with SLIC-EPID and 1.3 mm with aSi-EPID. Conclusions: Both EPIDs are clinically viable replacements for film, but aSi-EPID represents a significant advancement in image quality over film.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)584-591
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics
Volume54
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2002

Fingerprint

landmarks
visibility
Ions
Equipment and Supplies
electronics
ionization chambers
Anatomic Landmarks
Physicians
Silicon
Cadaver
clarity
physicians
scanning
liquids
Therapeutics
ratings
amorphous silicon

Keywords

  • EPID
  • Image quality
  • Portal film

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiation

Cite this

Electronic and film portal images : A comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy. / Kruse, Jon J.; Herman, Michael G.; Hagness, Chris R.; Davis, Brian J.; Garces, Yolanda Isabel; Haddock, Michael; Olivier, Kenneth R.; Stafford, Scott L.; Pisansky, Thomas M.

In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, Vol. 54, No. 2, 01.10.2002, p. 584-591.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kruse, Jon J. ; Herman, Michael G. ; Hagness, Chris R. ; Davis, Brian J. ; Garces, Yolanda Isabel ; Haddock, Michael ; Olivier, Kenneth R. ; Stafford, Scott L. ; Pisansky, Thomas M. / Electronic and film portal images : A comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy. In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics. 2002 ; Vol. 54, No. 2. pp. 584-591.
@article{8d9ac3a4bca6483191beed493d3e5b12,
title = "Electronic and film portal images: A comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy",
abstract = "Purpose: To quantitatively compare a scanning liquid ion chamber electronic portal imaging device (SLIC-EPID) and an amorphous silicon flat panel (aSi) EPID with portal film in clinical applications using measures of landmark visibility and treatment review accuracy. Methods and Materials: Six radiation oncologists viewed 39 electronic portal images (EPIs) from the SLIC-EPID, 36 EPIs from the aSi-EPID, and portal films of each of these treatment fields. The physicians rated the clarity of anatomic landmarks in the portal images, and the scores were compared between EPID and film. Nine hundred portal image reviews were performed. EPID and film portal images were acquired with known setup errors in either phantom or cadaver treatments. Physicians identified the errors visually in portal films and with computerized analysis for EPID. Results: There were no statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between film and SLIC-EPID in ratings of landmark clarity. Eleven of 12 landmarks were more visible in aSi-EPID than in film. Translational setup errors were identified with an average accuracy of 2.5 mm in film, compared to 1.5 mm with SLIC-EPID and 1.3 mm with aSi-EPID. Conclusions: Both EPIDs are clinically viable replacements for film, but aSi-EPID represents a significant advancement in image quality over film.",
keywords = "EPID, Image quality, Portal film",
author = "Kruse, {Jon J.} and Herman, {Michael G.} and Hagness, {Chris R.} and Davis, {Brian J.} and Garces, {Yolanda Isabel} and Michael Haddock and Olivier, {Kenneth R.} and Stafford, {Scott L.} and Pisansky, {Thomas M.}",
year = "2002",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02955-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "584--591",
journal = "International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics",
issn = "0360-3016",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electronic and film portal images

T2 - A comparison of landmark visibility and review accuracy

AU - Kruse, Jon J.

AU - Herman, Michael G.

AU - Hagness, Chris R.

AU - Davis, Brian J.

AU - Garces, Yolanda Isabel

AU - Haddock, Michael

AU - Olivier, Kenneth R.

AU - Stafford, Scott L.

AU - Pisansky, Thomas M.

PY - 2002/10/1

Y1 - 2002/10/1

N2 - Purpose: To quantitatively compare a scanning liquid ion chamber electronic portal imaging device (SLIC-EPID) and an amorphous silicon flat panel (aSi) EPID with portal film in clinical applications using measures of landmark visibility and treatment review accuracy. Methods and Materials: Six radiation oncologists viewed 39 electronic portal images (EPIs) from the SLIC-EPID, 36 EPIs from the aSi-EPID, and portal films of each of these treatment fields. The physicians rated the clarity of anatomic landmarks in the portal images, and the scores were compared between EPID and film. Nine hundred portal image reviews were performed. EPID and film portal images were acquired with known setup errors in either phantom or cadaver treatments. Physicians identified the errors visually in portal films and with computerized analysis for EPID. Results: There were no statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between film and SLIC-EPID in ratings of landmark clarity. Eleven of 12 landmarks were more visible in aSi-EPID than in film. Translational setup errors were identified with an average accuracy of 2.5 mm in film, compared to 1.5 mm with SLIC-EPID and 1.3 mm with aSi-EPID. Conclusions: Both EPIDs are clinically viable replacements for film, but aSi-EPID represents a significant advancement in image quality over film.

AB - Purpose: To quantitatively compare a scanning liquid ion chamber electronic portal imaging device (SLIC-EPID) and an amorphous silicon flat panel (aSi) EPID with portal film in clinical applications using measures of landmark visibility and treatment review accuracy. Methods and Materials: Six radiation oncologists viewed 39 electronic portal images (EPIs) from the SLIC-EPID, 36 EPIs from the aSi-EPID, and portal films of each of these treatment fields. The physicians rated the clarity of anatomic landmarks in the portal images, and the scores were compared between EPID and film. Nine hundred portal image reviews were performed. EPID and film portal images were acquired with known setup errors in either phantom or cadaver treatments. Physicians identified the errors visually in portal films and with computerized analysis for EPID. Results: There were no statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between film and SLIC-EPID in ratings of landmark clarity. Eleven of 12 landmarks were more visible in aSi-EPID than in film. Translational setup errors were identified with an average accuracy of 2.5 mm in film, compared to 1.5 mm with SLIC-EPID and 1.3 mm with aSi-EPID. Conclusions: Both EPIDs are clinically viable replacements for film, but aSi-EPID represents a significant advancement in image quality over film.

KW - EPID

KW - Image quality

KW - Portal film

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036803213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036803213&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02955-3

DO - 10.1016/S0360-3016(02)02955-3

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 584

EP - 591

JO - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

JF - International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics

SN - 0360-3016

IS - 2

ER -