SUMMARY
Portal films continue to play an important role in the verification of radiotherapy treatment. There is still some discussion, however, as to what action should be taken after a port film has shown a radiation field deviation from the prescribed volume. It was the aim of the present pilot study to investigate the performance of three decisionโmaking models (โAmsterdamโ, โQuebecโ and โNewcastleโ) and an expert panel basing their decision on intuition rather than formal rules after portal film acquisition in a clinical setting. Portal films were acquired on every day during the first week of treatment for five head and neck and five prostate cancer patients (diagnostic phase). If required, the field position was modified according to our normal practice following the recommendation of the expert panel. In order to analyse the results of the models, however, additional port films were taken in the following 3 treatment weeks with the patient moved as required by the different models (intervention phase). The portal films were taken over 4 consecutive days, positioning the patient according to each of the different models on one day each. None of the models diagnosed a field misplacement in the head and neck patients, while the โAmsterdamโ and โQuebecโ models predicted a move in one prostate patient. The โNewcastleโ model, which is based on Hotellingโs T ^2^ statistic, proved to be more sensitive and diagnosed a systematic displacement for three prostate patients. The intervention phase confirmed the diagnosis of the model, even if the three portal films taken with the patient position adjusted as required by the model proved to be insufficient to demonstrate an improvement. The โNewcastleโ model does not rely on assumptions about the random movement of patients and requires five portal films before a decision can be reached. This approach lends itself well to incorporation into electronic portal imaging โpackagesโ, where repeated image acquisitions present no logistical difficulty.