A New Verification Film System for Routine Quality Control of Radiation Fields: Kodak EC-L

BACKGROUND: The use of modern irradiation techniques requires better verification films for determining set-up deviations and patient movements during the course of radiation treatment. This is an investigation of the image quality and time requirement of a new verification film system compared to a conventional portal film system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For conventional verifications we used Agfa Curix HT 1000 films which were compared to the new Kodak EC-L film system. 344 Agfa Curix HT 1000 and 381 Kodak EC-L portal films of different tumor sites (prostate, rectum, head and neck) were visually judged on a light box by 2 experienced physicians. Subjective judgement of image quality, masking of films and time requirement were checked. RESULTS: In this investigation 68% of 175 Kodak EC-L ap/pa-films were judged "good", only 18% were classified "moderate" or "poor" 14%, but only 22% of 173 conventional ap/pa verification films (Agfa Curix HT 1000) were judged to be "good". CONCLUSIONS: The image quality, detail perception and time required for film inspection of the new Kodak EC-L film system was significantly improved when compared with standard portal films. They could be read more accurately and the detection of set-up deviation was facilitated.     

A clinical comparison of different film systems for radiotherapy portal imaging.

Portal films are an important tool for verification of the shaping and positioning of external radiation fields to the target volume in radiotherapy. One limitation of port films is their inherent lack of contrast, which is due to the low attenuation of the exposing megavoltage radiation by the tissues being imaged. Recently, Kodak introduced a new portal film-cassette system, Kodak EC-L, with much improved contrast compared with conventional film. The aim of this study was to determine if the enhanced contrast of the Kodak EC-L system actually provides better clinical results. To simulate clinical use, port films were taken using an anthropomorphic phantom that was artificially shifted and/or rotated by a predetermined distance. Identical images were taken using a conventional port film system (AGFA-Gevaert Curix MR4 in lead-lined cassette) and the Kodak EC-L system. Twelve different operators (6 physicists and 6 radiation therapists) were asked to diagnose the problem from a total of 20 port films (10 per treatment site), allowing for direct comparison of the 2 types of films. While the diagnosis of the field displacement improved using the Kodak film, it did not speed-up the decision-making process. It was also found that experienced operators were more accurate at evaluating the films. The results indicate that, for the situations studied (head and neck, pelvis), the Kodak system exhibits better contrast and leads to improved decision making.     

Contrast improvement in a new radiotherapy imaging system

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper is to compare the EC-L Kodak system for radiation therapy beam localization with a conventional one that could be daily employed in a radiotherapy department. BACKGROUND: The main purpose of portal images is to verify the treatment volume in actual clinical conditions. Low contrast is the main constraint affecting portal film image. METHODS: Kodak proposes a new imaging system (film and cassette) characterized by contrast enhancement as imaging standard for radiotherapy. The evaluation of system contrast was carried out by using a step-wedge consisting in 4 60 x 60 mm plexiglas steps and an anthropomorphic phantom. Portal films were exposed to a 6 MV photon beam by a linear accelerator (Varian Clinac 1800) with a 250 x 340 mm field size at the 1000 mm source film distance. The 2 imaging system performances were evaluated analyzing the image optical density. RESULTS: The use of the Kodak system results in a real contrast improvement, so it is satisfactory to describe the field placement as to the region of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The most critical characteristic attaining this method regards low contrast, i. e. the small optical density difference existing between different anatomical regions on the film. Since radiographic techniques can significantly influence quality of portal films, the adequate choice of film and screen combination, as well as the exposure technique is particularly useful in a radiotherapy quality assurance program.     

Portal Verification Using the KODAK ACR 2000 RT Storage Phosphor Plate System and EC® Films

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The suitability of the storage phosphor plate system ACR 2000 RT (Eastman Kodak Corp., Rochester, MN, USA), that is destined for portal verification as well as for portal simulation imaging in radiotherapy, had to be proven by the comparison with a highly sensitive verification film. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The comparison included portal verification images of different regions (head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis) irradiated with 6- and 15-MV photons and electrons. Each portal verification image was done at the storage screen and the EC film as well, using the EC-L cassettes (both: Eastman Kodak Corp., Rochester, MN, USA) for both systems. The soft-tissue and bony contrast and the brightness were evaluated and compared in a ranking of the two compared images. Different phantoms were irradiated to investigate the high- and low-contrast resolution. To account for quality assurance application, the short-time exposure of the unpacked and irradiated storage screen by green and red room lasers was also investigated. RESULTS: In general, the quality of the processed ACR images was slightly higher than that of the films, mostly due to cases of an insufficient exposure to the film. The storage screen was able to verify electron portals even for low electron energies with only minor photon contamination. The laser lines were sharply and clearly visible on the ACR images. CONCLUSION: The ACR system may replace the film without any noticeable decrease in image quality thereby reducing processing time and saving the costs of films and avoiding incorrect exposures.     

Evaluation of radiographs developed by a new ultrarapid film processing system

The image quality of radiographs developed by a new ultrarapid processor was evaluated to determine if faster processing causes degradation in the image. The processor used was the Konica Super-Rapid SRX-501 model. Two films designed for this processor (Konica MGH-SR and MGL-SR) were processed in 45 sec and were compared with standard rapid processing in 90 sec of corresponding conventional films (Kodak TMG and OC). Rare-earth screens (Kodak Lanex Regular and Lanex Medium) used with the new and conventional films interleaved during angiographic studies or for phantom images were assessed for image quality. The basic imaging properties of the screen-film systems were examined by measuring (1) Hurter and Driffield curves, (2) modulation transfer functions by using the slit method, and (3) noise Wiener spectra. Subjective clinical assessment showed that the images obtained with ultrarapid processing were acceptable, with increased contrast and graininess. Hurter and Driffield curve measurements confirmed higher gradients. Modulation transfer function measurements were the same as for the conventional films. Noise Wiener spectrum measurements showed a 10% increase in noise for MGH-SR vs TMG film and a 30% increase for MGL-SR vs OC film. We conclude that acceptable image quality can be obtained using ultrarapid processing, with processing time approximately 60% that of conventional rapid processing. Potential applications include all areas in which rapid availability of the radiograph for interpretation is important. Although the processor studied was the first of its kind available, our evaluation indicates that the technology is available for a new class of ultrarapid processors.     

In Vivo Verification of Electron Beam Energy by Patient Exit Dose and Optical Density of Portal Films

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The depth-dose curve of electron beams is mainly determined by their energy. For accelerators with scatter foils, the electron energy can, in principle, be verified by measuring the amount of the contaminating photons. This paper investigates whether exit dose measurements and evaluations of the optical density of portal films can be used to verify the energy of the electron beam in a clinically relevant setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During irradiation of the head and neck region of an Alderson-Rando phantom with 6- to 21-MeV electron beams, the exit dose rates behind the phantom and the dose rates at the position of a film cassette were measured. The optical density of films (EC film/EC-L Regular and EC-L Fast cassettes, Eastman Kodak Comp., Rochester, NY, USA) exposed to beams of different energies was evaluated. RESULTS: The exit and the cassette dose rates showed a steep increase with increasing electron energy. Due to its density behavior, the film with both types of cassettes failed to generate images for lower electron energies (6 and 9 MeV) but presented a strong ascent of the optical density-until reaching the saturation-with increasing electron energy. CONCLUSION: Measurements of the exit dose and evaluations of the optical density of portal films can be used to verify and document the energy of electron beams during radiotherapy.     

A comparison of mammography screen-film combinations.

A comparison study was performed to evaluate the image quality and radiation dose of six mammographic screen-film combinations: a Min-R screen with OM-1, SO-155, and SO-177 films (Eastman Kodak); a Min-R medium screen (Eastman Kodak) with OM-1 film; an HR Mammo medium screen (Fuji Medical Systems USA) with OM-1 film; and a Min-R fast screen with T-Mat M II film (Eastman Kodak). SO-177 films were processed with an extended cycle. Exposures of an acrylic test object with embedded masses, fibers, and specks and of a preserved breast specimen were made, for two paired image comparison tests in which the visibility of diagnostic features, contrast, and noise were judged. In most areas of image quality evaluated, a Min-R screen with OM-1, SO-155, and SO-177 films was superior. These three screen-film combinations had similar imaging characteristics, even though OM-1 film requires a higher radiation exposure. Images produced with a Min-R fast screen and T-Mat M II film were significantly lower in quality.     

Portal imaging

Portal imaging is the acquisition of images with a radiotherapy beam. Imaging theory suggests that the quality of portal images could be much higher if the efficiency of the imaging media in detecting radiation could be improved. Introduction of new media (films and electronic portal imaging devices) has confirmed this by markedly increasing the quality of portal images. Images from these devices can then be used to verify a patient's treatment. Geometric verification requires the portal image to be registered with a reference image. Dosimetric verification requires the portal imager to be calibrated for dose. This review gives a brief overview of the current areas of interest in portal imaging: imaging theory; imaging media, film and electronic portal imaging devices; image registration; and dosimetry using these devices.     

Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Any given mammographic film will exhibit changes in sensitometric response and image resolution as processing variables are altered. Developer type, immersion time, and temperature have been shown to affect the contrast of the mammographic image and thus lesion visibility. The authors evaluated the effect of altering processing variables, including film type, developer type, and immersion time, on the visibility of masses, fibrils, and speaks in a standard mammographic phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of a phantom obtained with two screen types (Kodak Min-R and Fuji) and five film types (Kodak Min-R M, Min-R E, Min-R H; Fuji UM-MA HC, and DuPont Microvision-C) were processed with five different developer chemicals (Autex SE, DuPont HSD, Kodak RP, Picker 3-7-90, and White Mountain) at four different immersion times (24, 30, 36, and 46 seconds). Processor chemical activity was monitored with sensitometric strips, and developer temperatures were continuously measured. The film images were reviewed by two board-certified radiologists and two physicists with expertise in mammography quality control and were scored based on the visibility of calcifications, masses, and fibrils. RESULTS: Although the differences in the absolute scores were not large, the Kodak Min-R M and Fuji films exhibited the highest scores, and images developed in White Mountain and Autex chemicals exhibited the highest scores. CONCLUSION: For any film, several processing chemicals may be used to produce images of similar quality. Extended processing may no longer be necessary.     

Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography

In this study the effect of different mammographic screen-film combinations on image quality and breast dose, and the correlation between the various image quality parameters, breast dose and the sensitometric parameters of a film were investigated. Three Agfa (MR5-II, HDR, HT), two Kodak (Min-R M, Min-R 2000), one Fuji (AD-M), one Konica (CM-H) and one Ferrania (HM plus) single emulsion mammographic films were combined with three intensifying screens (Agfa HDS, Kodak Min-R 2190 and Fuji AD-MA). The film characteristics were determined by sensitometry, while the image quality and the dose to the breast of the resulting 24 screen-film combinations were assessed using a mammography quality control phantom. For each combination, three images of the phantom were acquired with optical density within three different ranges. Two observers assessed the quality of the 72 phantom images obtained, while the breast dose was calculated from the exposure data required for each image. Large differences among screen-film combinations in terms of image quality and breast dose were identified however, that, could not be correlated with the film's sensitometric characteristics. All films presented the best resolution when combined with the HDS screen at the expense of speed, and the largest speed when combined with the AD-MA screen, without degradation of the overall image quality. However, an ideal screen-film combination presenting the best image quality with the least dose was not identified. It is also worth mentioning that the best performance for a film was not necessarily obtained when this was combined with the screen provided by the same manufacturer. The results of this study clearly demonstrate that comparison of films based on their sensitometric characteristics are of limited value for clinical practice, as their performance is strongly affected by the screens with which they are combined.     

A comparison of two different T-grain films in rare-earth screens with a standard film-screen combination for intravenous pyelography and bone examinations

T-grain film is claimed to give significantly improved image quality, allowing the use of faster screens without loss of quality and thus reducing radiation dose. We tested this claim for two systems. In each case comparison was made with our usual screen-film combination, Agfa Curix RP1 film with Kodak Xomatic Regular screens (a nominally 200 speed system). The systems tested were Kodak TMatG in Kodak Lanex Medium screens (300 speed) and Agfa STG in Kodak Lanex Regular screens (400 speed). The Agfa STG-Lanex Regular system performed less well than the standard system for intravenous pyelograms (IVPs), bones and soft-tissue detail. Its speed advantage was not apparent below 70 kV. The Kodak TMatG-Lanex Medium system was better than the standard system for IVPs but not as good for bones. It gave virtually no speed advantage below 90 kV. Kodak T-grain film in a medium-speed, rare-earth screen was found to be better than the standard system for IVPs. Agfa T-grain film in a fast rare-earth screen was unsatisfactory for IVPs. Neither combination was as good as the standard system for bones.     

A demonstration comparing film mammography with the new high sensitivity xeromammography

The author has performed a subjective comparison of breast images recorded with a new liquid-toner xerographic system and images of the same breasts recorded on Kodak OM-1 film exposed with a MinR screen and a 5 to 1 grid. The xeromammograms are judged to be superior to the mammograms recorded on film with respect to: (1) the demonstration of calcifications, circumscribed masses, and the back of the breast; (2) the "resolution" of dense connective tissue; and (3) the overall image quality. Radiation doses to the breast associated with the two types of study are said to be comparable. Thirteen pairs of excellent images comparing xeromammograms with conventional breast films are presented.     

The Electronic Portal Imaging System Siemens Beamview Plus® Versus the Conventional Verification Films CEA-TVS® and DuPont CQL-7®A Critical Appraisal of Visual Image Quality

AIM: The aim of this study was the validation of the visual image quality of electronic portal imaging devices (EPID) and conventional verification films from the point of view of the end-viewers of portal films, the radiotherapists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The verification image was represented in two different forms, viz. an electronic portal image employing Siemens Beamview Plus (on a computer monitor) and two different portal films using the conventional verification films CEA-TVS and DuPont CQL-7 (on a negatoscope). A total of 270 image sets (simulation film and portal image) were evaluated by each radiotherapist, evaluation extending to 90 sets of each type of verification film. Each set was evaluated by three specialists in radiotherapy examining subjective visual image quality whereby the following aspects served as evaluation criteria: contrast, artifacts, determination of actual radiation field edge position, anatomical structures and main structural feature for the determination of treatment field position. In addition, the anatomical structures employed for visual feature correlation between reference and portal films were classified according to their importance. RESULTS: In general the electronic portal image was rated significantly "visible" or better. Only the evaluation of artifacts showed an appreciable disadvantage for electronic portal imaging caused by physical artifacts due to radiographic technique and data processing aspects peculiar to the Siemens Beamview Plus 1.1. and also caused by different image processing tools reducing physical artifacts and enhancing the visibility of anatomical structures and likewise of anatomical artifacts (e.g. intestinal gas). By calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient to detect a possible relationship between the different criteria of subjective visual image quality, the research demonstrated that artifacts when limited to a tolerable proportion had no significant impact on the other criteria. CONCLUSIONS: As data of EPIDS are digital, images can be postprocessed and enhanced in a wide variety of ways. Using this tool the electronic portal imaging device provides images that, in terms of visual image quality, are at least comparable to the two evaluated types of radiographic films and also have the added advantage that such images are stored and can be transferred electronically being presupposition for digital patient documentation.     

Monitorbeurteilung digitalisierter und nachbearbeiteter Feldkontrollaufnahmen im Vergleich zu konventionellen Feldkontrollaufnahmen am Röntgenschaukasten

Purpose

Judgement of image quality and detail recognition of digitized and post-processed portal films presented on a computer monitor compared to the present standard, conventional portal films presented on a light-box.

Material and Methods

Conventional portal films of 3 different tumor sites (10 pelvis, 10 cranium, 10 vertebral column) were presented to a panel of 8 observers in 3 different manners: conventional film presented on a light-box (Conv), digitized non-post-processed images (Dig-1) and digitized post-processed images (Dig-2) presented on a high-resolution computer monitor. Subjective judgement of image quality, detail recognition and time requirement of conventional films compared to monitor presentation were evaluated using a 5-scaled questionnaire (from 1=much better to 5=much worse). Furthermore the observers had to point out predefined anatomical bony structures on the conventional films (Conv) as well as on the digitized post-processed images (Dig-2). Standard deviations of the landmarks outlined by 10 different observers were used as a criterion of objective detail recognition (Figure 1).

Results

Image quality of digitized post-processed images presented on the computer monitor was judged statistical significant better than of conventional films (pelvis 78%, vertebral column 62%, cranium 45% better) (Figure 3). Similar results were found for comparison of detail recognition: digitized post-processed images were scored better for pelvis in 81%, for vertebral column in 57%, for cranium in 40% (Figure 4, Table 1). Most benefit from portal film enhancement was found for pelvic images, where portal films are known to be of poor image quality (Figure 2). In contrast image quality of non-processed digital images compared to conventional films was graded worse (pelvis 69%, vertebral column 53%, cranium 71% worse) (Figure 4). Digital post-processed images were especially for the pelvis judged to require less time (pelvis 68%, vertebral column 26%, cranium 8% less time requirement) (Figure 5). For the pelvis a statistical significant decrease of standard deviations was found for Dig-2 compared to conventional films, indicating an objective increase of image quality and detail recognition (Table 2). In case of vertebral column and cranium no significant differences were evaluated (Table 3).

Conclusions

Digitized enhanced portal films presented on a computer monitor resulted in a quicker assessment and equal to better image quality as well as detail recognition compared to conventional films. Non-processed digitized images were judged to be of less image quality.     

A comparative study of films and screens for mammography

Ten films and six screens suitable for mammography have been compared for image quality using a realistic quantitative phantom under controlled conditions. The best screen was Min R (Kodak), but three black and white films, Min R (Kodak), Fuji II NC (Fuji) and MR3 (Agfa-Gevaert), scored highly. Patient dose was also considered and, with these three films, small gains in image quality were balanced by small increases in dose. Medichrome Blue film, however, gave the highest score of all, and did so for a dose that was less than the highest. These results were confirmed on a second phantom of entirely different design.     

Diagnostic quality of mammograms obtained with a new low-radiation-dose dual-screen and dual-emulsion film combination

We evaluated the image quality of mammograms made by using a new dual-screen, dual-emulsion film combination (Kodak Min-R Fast screen, T-Mat Mll film) that permits reduction of radiation exposure by approximately 50% when compared with a standard single-screen, single-emulsion film system (Kodak Min-R screen, OM-1 film). This new film has been improved when compared with earlier T-Mat M film, including the introduction of an inert dye to reduce light crossover to essentially 0%. Mammogram pairs made with the dual-emulsion film combination and the standard single-emulsion film combination were obtained in 50 patients otherwise undergoing routine mammography. The image pairs were randomized and evaluated by three radiologists who used a three-point scale (better, same, or worse). Each pair was evaluated with regard to parenchymal contrast, sharpness, and latitude, as well as the number and sharpness of calcifications (n = 19) and sharpness of masses (n = 12) when present. All three observers found the dual-emulsion film combination to be better than or the same as the standard with regard to parenchymal sharpness (94-100%), the number and sharpness of calcifications (98-100%), and sharpness of masses (100%). Two observers found the dual-emulsion film combination to be significantly worse (p less than .05) than the standard with respect to parenchymal contrast (72%, 86%), and all three observers rated it significantly worse for film latitude (14 to 42%). Our results suggest that this new dual-emulsion film combination that allows mammography to be performed with less radiation exposure can be used without loss of image quality.     

Value of increasing film processing time to reduce radiation dose during mammography

We systematically tested the effects on radiation dose and image quality of increasing the mammographic film processing time from the standard 90 sec to 3 min. Hurter and Driffield curves were obtained for a Kodak Min-R-OM1-SO177 screen-film combination processed with Kodak chemistry. Image contrast and radiation dose were measured for two tissue-equivalent breast phantoms. We also compared sequential pairs of mammograms, one processed at 90 sec and one at 3 min, from 44 patients on the basis of nine categories of image quality. Increased processing time reduced breast radiation dose by 30%, increased contrast by 11%, and produced slight overall gains in image quality. Simple modifications can convert a 90-sec processor to a 3-min unit. We recommend that implementation of extended processing be considered, especially by those centers that obtain a large number of screening mammograms. Three-minute film processing can reduce breast radiation dose by 30% and increase contrast by 11% without compromising image quality.     

Portal Verification of High-Energy Electron Beams Using their Photon Contamination by Film-Cassette Systems

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Though electron beams are widely used in radiotherapy, their verification is not well established in clinical practice. The present study compares the suitability of several sensitive film-cassette systems for electron-portal verification by contaminating photons. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The characteristics of the optical density curves of film-cassette combinations were determined by exposing them to the bremsstrahlung contamination of a variety of electron beams. Using a Las-Vegas Phantom the spatial low-contrast resolution of the combinations was investigated. The absorbed dose rates due to the contaminant photons were measured for different geometric conditions. RESULTS: Suitable film-cassette combinations were found for portal verification of all usual electron energies. The best image quality was obtained using the EC film and the EC-L cassettes. For electron energies higher than 6 MeV some film-cassette combinations are suitable to verify abutted electron and photon portals using the same film sheet. CONCLUSION: The verification of electron portals and of abutted electron-photon portals can be performed by sensitive film-cassette systems with an image quality comparable to photon-beam verification.     

Image quality comparisons of X-Omat RP, L and B films.

The Eastman Kodak Company has recently developed a new film, X-Omat B (XB), designed to be interchangeable with X-Omat RP (XRP) film. The manufacturer claims the new film can be manually developed in half the time of other X-Omat films while automatic processing is unchanged. Three X-Omat film types were processed manually or automatically and the image qualities were evaluated. The XRP film had greater contrast than the XB and X-Omat L (XL) films when manually processed, and the XL film showed less contrast than the XB and XRP films when processed automatically. There was no difference in the subjective evaluation of the various film types and processing methods, and the XB film could be interchanged with XRP film in a simulated clinical situation.     

Processing of mammographic films: technical and clinical considerations

Sensitometrically exposed film strips and clinical mammograms from single-emulsion Kodak Ortho M SO-177 and double-emulsion Kodak T-Mat M II films were processed in separate film processors set up for standard and extended-cycle processing. For the extended-cycle method, it is necessary to use a process that is dedicated to mammographic films only. Radiation dose reductions of approximately 30% for Ortho M film and 13% for T-Mat M II film were achieved with the extended-cycle process. In the mammogram comparisons, higher-contrast images were obtained with Ortho M film in the extended-cycle process, which allowed for improved demonstration of marginal structural characteristics of soft-tissue masses and better differentiation of benign and malignant tumors. No significant differences in contrast were observed in the T-Mat M II mammograms obtained with the extended-cycle process.