The use of electronic portal imaging to verify patient position during intensity-modulated radiotherapy delivered by the dynamic MLC technique

Purpose: The precise shape of the three-dimensional dose distributions created by intensity-modulated radiotherapy means that the verification of patient position and setup is crucial to the outcome of the treatment. In this paper, we investigate and compare the use of two different image calibration procedures that allow extraction of patient anatomy from measured electronic portal images of intensity-modulated treatment beams. Methods and Materials: Electronic portal images of the intensity-modulated treatment beam delivered using the dynamic multileaf collimator technique were acquired. The images were formed by measuring a series of frames or segments throughout the delivery of the beams. The frames were then summed to produce an integrated portal image of the delivered beam. Two different methods for calibrating the integrated image were investigated with the aim of removing the intensity modulations of the beam. The first involved a simple point-by-point division of the integrated image by a single calibration image of the intensity-modulated beam delivered to a homogeneous polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom. The second calibration method is known as the quadratic calibration method and required a series of calibration images of the intensity-modulated beam delivered to different thicknesses of homogeneous PMMA blocks. Measurements were made using two different detector systems: a Varian amorphous silicon flat-panel imager and a Theraview camera-based system. The methods were tested first using a contrast phantom before images were acquired of intensity-modulated radiotherapy treatment delivered to the prostate and pelvic nodes of cancer patients at the Royal Marsden Hospital. Results: The results indicate that the calibration methods can be used to remove the intensity modulations of the beam, making it possible to see the outlines of bony anatomy that could be used for patient position verification. This was shown for both posterior and lateral delivered fields. Conclusions: Very little difference between the two calibration methods was observed, so the simpler division method, requiring only the single extra calibration measurement and much simpler computation, was the favored method. This new method could provide a complementary tool to existing position verification methods, and it has the advantage that it is completely passive, requiring no further dose to the patient and using only the treatment fields.