AbstractObjective To achieve quantitative analysis of image quality parameters and establish warning and action thresholds for the on-board imaging (OBI) system of linear accelerator. Methods The Catphan604 phantom was repeatedly scanned in the Full-Fan and Half-Fan CBCT scanning modes on a Varian EDGE linear accelerator, and the software based on Python language development in-house was utilized to analyze image quality parameters, such as CT number linearity, geometric consistency, slice thickness, spatial resolution, uniformity and low-contrast resolution. The quantitative analysis results of each image quality parameter obtained from 16 times of scanning within 16 months were normalized to the mean and the standard deviations were recorded. A run chart analysis was created to determine the warnings and action thresholds. Results The software built in-house can quantitatively analyze the image parameters of the two scanning modes of OBI system. The low-contrast resolution of Half-Fan was better than that of Full-Fan, whereas the spatial resolution of Full-Fan was superior to that of Half-Fan. One standard deviation (1σ) was set as the warning threshold and 2 standard deviations (2σ) as the action threshold, respectively. The tolerance level of Half-Fan was smaller than that of Full-Fan. Conclusion Self-developed software enables quantitative analysis of accelerator image quality parameters, establishes warning and action tolerance of quality assurance and provides guidance for image quality assurance under image-guided radiotherapy specification.
Hu Jinyan,Pei Yuntong,Ma Yangguang et al. A quantitative evaluation on the image-quality parameters and quality assurance thresholds setting of accelerator on-board imaging system[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2019, 28(12): 919-923.
Hu Jinyan,Pei Yuntong,Ma Yangguang et al. A quantitative evaluation on the image-quality parameters and quality assurance thresholds setting of accelerator on-board imaging system[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 2019, 28(12): 919-923.
[1]Elstrøm UV,Muren LP,Petersen JB,et al. Evaluation of image quality for different kV cone-beam CT acquisition and reconstruction methods in the head and neck region[J]. Acta Oncol,2011,50(6):908-917. DOI:10.3109/0284186X.2011.590525.
[2]庄永东,王彬,朱金汉,等. 医用直线加速器机载影像系统QC图像定量评估方法研究[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2017,26(4):442-447. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.04.016.
Zhuang YD,Wang B,Zhu JH,et al. A quantitative evaluation of quality control image for on-board imaging system of medical linear accelerator[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2017,26(4):442-447. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.04.016.
[3]Lim SY,Zin HM. Quantitative image quality evaluation for kV cone-beam CT-based IGRT[J]. J Phys,2017,851(1):012029. DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/851/1/012029.
[4]汪隽琦,徐志勇,胡伟刚,等. 千伏级锥形束CT图像质量和稳定性及三维影像体积重建精度研究[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2012,21(2):176-180. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2012.02.024.
Wang JQ,Xu ZY,Hu WG,et al. Quantitative analysis of image quality,stability and volume precision in kilovoltage cone beam CT[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2012,21(2):176-180. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2012.02.024.
[5]Perla RJ,Provost LP,Murray SK. The run chart:a simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes[J]. BMJ Qual Saf,2011,20(1):46-51. DOI:10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
[6]张俊,周丁屹,谢丛华,等. CT值区间划分及用于治疗计划剂量计算研究[J]. 中华放射肿瘤学杂志,2017,26(9):1067-1071. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.09.017.
Zhang J,Zhou DY,Xie CH,et al. Influence of CT value division on dose calculation in treatment planning[J]. Chin J Radiat Oncol,2017,26(9):1067-1071. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4221.2017.09.017.
[7]Stanley DN,Rasmussen K,Kirby N,et al. An evaluation of the stability of image quality parameters of Elekta X-ray volume imager and iView GT imaging systems[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys,2018,19(3):64-70. DOI:10.1002/acm2.12289.
[8]Langen KM,Papanikolaou N,Balog J,et al. QA for helical tomotherapy:report of the AAPM Task Group 148[J]. Med Phys,2010,37(9):4817-4853. DOI:10.1118/1.3462971.
2019, Vol. 28 
