Search

PURPOSE Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) serve as a helpful tool for organ radiation dosimetry and their use has grown in computed tomography (CT). While different approaches have been used for MOSFET calibration, those using the commonly available 100 mm pencil ionization chamber have not incorporated measurements performed throughout its length, and moreover, no previous work has rigorously evaluated the multiple sources of error involved in MOSFET calibration. In this paper, we propose a new MOSFET calibration approach to translate MOSFET voltage measurements into absorbed dose from CT, based on serial measurements performed throughout the length of a 100-mm ionization chamber, and perform an analysis of the errors of MOSFET voltage measurements and four sources of error in calibration. METHODS MOSFET calibration was performed at two sites, to determine single calibration factors for tube potentials of 80, 100, and 120 kVp, using a 100-mm-long pencil ion chamber and a cylindrical computed tomography dose index (CTDI) phantom of 32 cm diameter. The dose profile along the 100-mm ion chamber axis was sampled in 5 mm intervals by nine MOSFETs in the nine holes of the CTDI phantom. Variance of the absorbed dose was modeled as a sum of the MOSFET voltage measurement variance and the calibration factor variance, the latter being comprised of three main subcomponents: ionization chamber reading variance, MOSFET-to-MOSFET variation and a contribution related to the fact that the average calibration factor of a few MOSFETs was used as an estimate for the average value of all MOSFETs. MOSFET voltage measurement error was estimated based on sets of repeated measurements. The calibration factor overall voltage measurement error was calculated from the above analysis. RESULTS Calibration factors determined were close to those reported in the literature and by the manufacturer (~3 mV/mGy), ranging from 2.87 to 3.13 mV/mGy. The error σV of a MOSFET voltage measurement was shown to be proportional to the square root of the voltage V: σV=cV where c = 0.11 mV. A main contributor to the error in the calibration factor was the ionization chamber reading error with 5% error. The usage of a single calibration factor for all MOSFETs introduced an additional error of about 5-7%, depending on the number of MOSFETs that were used to determine the single calibration factor. The expected overall error in a high-dose region (~30 mGy) was estimated to be about 8%, compared to 6% when an individual MOSFET calibration was performed. For a low-dose region (~3 mGy), these values were 13% and 12%. CONCLUSIONS A MOSFET calibration method was developed using a 100-mm pencil ion chamber and a CTDI phantom, accompanied by an absorbed dose error analysis reflecting multiple sources of measurement error. When using a single calibration factor, per tube potential, for different MOSFETs, only a small error was introduced into absorbed dose determinations, thus supporting the use of a single calibration factor for experiments involving many MOSFETs, such as those required to accurately estimate radiation effective dose.

The purpose of this paper was to present a method of determining the dose profile of the beam bow-tie filter (BTF) without the need for fixing the x ray tube in a position or using special instruments or dosimeters other than the ordinary types of ion chambers used for CT dosimetry (e.g., Farmer chamber).The idea behind this method is to try to invert the integral of exposures from axial measurements by decomposing it into fractions per degree of tube rotation. Measurements of the CT tube output were taken with a full tube rotation while the chamber was fixed in air. Starting with isocenter the output measurements were performed at 1-cm interval above the isocenter. Measurements were repeated for three sizes of BTFs; small, medium, and large. Maximum fan angle per chamber position was computed and an effective fan angle was defined to account for the new angular range encountered per chamber position. Variation due to inverse-square law was isolated from each measurement and contribution from the effective fan angle was computed. Resulted profiles from this method were then compared to profiles obtained with direct measurements, when the tube was in a fixed position. Effects of over and under 360° rotation per scan on results accuracy were also investigated.Using the direct measurements as the gold standard, results from this method were accurate to 4% for most of the BTFs angular ranges. The average relative error in the small BTF was 1.5%. In the medium BTF, the average relative error was3% for up to 16° fan angle. With the large BTF, the mean error was about 4% for up to 22°. The relative error appeared to increase at larger fan angles especially with the large BTF; reaching an average of about 32% for fan angles between 22° and 27.5°.The presented method is relatively easy to perform and provides BTFs profiles with reasonably good accuracy. Associated errors of10% only appear in high angles of large and medium BTFs.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV's, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o'clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV's, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI's from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV's. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the possibility of estimating pediatric thyroid doses from CT using surface neck doses. Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters were used to measure the neck surface dose of 25 children ranging in ages between one and three years old. The neck circumference for each child was measured. The relationship between obtained surface doses and thyroid dose was studied using acrylic phantoms of various sizes and with holes of different depths. The ratios of hole-to-surface doses were used to convert patients' surface dose to thyroid dose. ImPACT software was utilized to calculate thyroid dose after applying the appropriate age correction factors. A paired t-test was performed to compare thyroid doses from our approach and ImPACT. The ratio of thyroid to surface dose was found to be 1.1. Thyroid doses ranged from 20 to 80 mGy. Comparison showed no statistical significance (p = 0.18). In addition, the average of surface dose variation along the z-axis in helical scans was studied and found to range between 5% (in 10 cm diameter phantom/24 mm collimation/pitch 1.0) and 8% (in 16 cm diameter phantom/12 mm collimation/pitch 0.7). We conclude that surface dose is an acceptable predictor for pediatric thyroid dose from CT. The uncertainty due to surface dose variability may be reduced if narrower collimation is used with a pitch factor close to 1.0. Also, the results did not show any effect of thyroid depth on the measured dose.