Tomio Fujioka

Quality of portal verification images using GLP7 film

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES To improve portal verification radiographs, we tested the application of GLP7 film. METHODS The quality of the portal verification radiograph using the XV cassette-GLP7 film combination and the XL cassette-GLP7 film combination was investigated. The XV cassette-XV2 film combination and the SA cassette-GS screen-XTL film combination also were used for comparison. RESULTS The characteristic curves showed that the relative speeds were 0.32 and 0.47 for the XV-GLP7 and XL-GLP7 combinations and that the average gradients were 1.93, 2.14, and 1.32 for the XV-GLP7, XL-GLP7, and XV-XV2 combinations, respectively. In the experiment using Burgers phantom, the smallest visible volumes were 11.8, 11.3, 28.7, and 19.6 mm3 for the XV-GLP7, XL-GLP7, XV-XV2, and SA-GS-XTL combinations, respectively. In the lower dosage treatment in the clinic, there were no marked differences between the GLP7 film and XV2 film. However, in the higher dosage treatment, the GLP7 film had a better quality than did the XV2 film. CONCLUSION Portal verification radiographs using GLP7 film are of sufficient quality for clinical use.

Patient setup verification procedure for a portal image in a computed radiography system with a high-resolution liquid-crystal display monitor

In our conventional visual inspection for setup verification, we have routinely used a console monitor of a CR system and a monitor of a treatment-planning system (i.e., the separate-monitor method) in order to avoid the need for CR portal-film generation. However, the separate-monitor method provided insufficient precision in detecting setup errors. We devised a setup verification procedure that uses a high-resolution liquid-crystal display monitor (i.e., the single-monitor method). Our objective in the present study was to evaluate the precision of the single-monitor method. These two methods were compared in terms of the precision of visual inspection. The single-monitor method was significantly superior to the separate-monitor method in sensitivity and in the magnitude of the discrepancy that could not be detected. The single-monitor method provides higher precision in visual inspection than does the separate-monitor method, and is a useful verification procedure.