Should 3K zoom function be used for detection of pneumothorax in cesium iodide/amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiographs presented on 1K-matrix soft copies?

The purpose of the study was to evaluate observer performance in the detection of pneumothorax with cesium iodide and amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography (CsI/a-Si FDR) presented as 1K and 3K soft-copy images. Forty patients with and 40 patients without pneumothorax diagnosed on previous and subsequent digital storage phosphor radiography (SPR, gold standard) had follow-up chest radiographs with CsI/a-Si FDR. Four observers confirmed or excluded the diagnosis of pneumothorax according to a five-point scale first on the 1K soft-copy image and then with help of 3K zoom function (1K monitor). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for each modality (1K and 3K). The area under the curve (AUC) values for each observer were 0.7815, 0.7779, 0.7946 and 0.7066 with 1K-matrix soft copies and 0.8123, 0.7997, 0.8078 and 0.7522 with 3K zoom. Overall detection of pneumothorax was better with 3K zoom. Differences between the two display methods were not statistically significant in 3 of 4 observers (p-values between 0.13 and 0.44; observer 4: p = 0.02). The detection of pneumothorax with 3K zoom is better than with 1K soft copy but not at a statistically significant level. Differences between both display methods may be subtle. Still, our results indicate that 3K zoom should be employed in clinical practice.

Testing the GlaaS algorithm for dose measurements on low- and high-energy photon beams using an amorphous silicon portal imager

The GLAaS algorithm for pretreatment intensity modulation radiation therapy absolute dose verification based on the use of amorphous silicon detectors, as described in Nicolini et al. [G. Nicolini, A. Fogliata, E. Vanetti, A. Clivio, and L. Cozzi, Med. Phys. 33, 2839-2851 (2006)], was tested under a variety of experimental conditions to investigate its robustness, the possibility of using it in different clinics and its performance. GLAaS was therefore tested on a low-energy Varian Clinac (6 MV) equipped with an amorphous silicon Portal Vision PV-aS500 with electronic readout IAS2 and on a high-energy Clinac (6 and 15 MV) equipped with a PV-aS1000 and IAS3 electronics. Tests were performed for three calibration conditions: A: adding buildup on the top of the cassette such that SDD-SSD = d(max) and comparing measurements with corresponding doses computed at d(max), B: without adding any buildup on the top of the cassette and considering only the intrinsic water-equivalent thickness of the electronic portal imaging devices device (0.8 cm), and C: without adding any buildup on the top of the cassette but comparing measurements against doses computed at d(max). This procedure is similar to that usually applied when in vivo dosimetry is performed with solid state diodes without sufficient buildup material. Quantitatively, the gamma index (gamma), as described by Low et al. [D. A. Low, W. B. Harms, S. Mutic, and J. A. Purdy, Med. Phys. 25, 656-660 (1998)], was assessed. The gamma index was computed for a distance to agreement (DTA) of 3 mm. The dose difference deltaD was considered as 2%, 3%, and 4%. As a measure of the quality of results, the fraction of field area with gamma larger than 1 (%FA) was scored. Results over a set of 50 test samples (including fields from head and neck, breast, prostate, anal canal, and brain cases) and from the long-term routine usage, demonstrated the robustness and stability of GLAaS. In general, the mean values of %FA remain below 3% for deltaD equal or larger than 3%, while they are slightly larger for deltaD = 2% with %FA in the range from 3% to 8%. Since its introduction in routine practice, 1453 fields have been verified with GLAaS at the authors' institute (6 MV beam). Using a DTA of 3 mm and a deltaD of 4% the authors obtained %FA = 0.9 +/- 1.1 for the entire data set while, stratifying according to the dose calculation algorithm, they observed: %FA = 0.7 +/- 0.9 for fields computed with the analytical anisotropic algorithm and %FA = 2.4 +/- 1.3 for pencil-beam based fields with a statistically significant difference between the two groups. If data are stratified according to field splitting, they observed %FA = 0.8 +/- 1.0 for split fields and 1.0 +/- 1.2 for nonsplit fields without any significant difference.