Evaluation and Validation of Computed Tomography Dose Accuracy(CTDIw AND CTDIvol)

Authors

  • Abrokwa Sintim  Department of Medical Physics, School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
  • Edem Sosu  Medical Radiation Physics Centre, Radiological and Medical Sciences Research Institute, Ghana Atomic Energy Commission, Accra, Ghana
  • Francis Hasford  Department of Medical Physics, School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana
  • Augustine Kyere  Department of Medical Physics, School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana

Keywords:

Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI), Exposure (X), Dose Profiler Probe, Temperature and Pressure Correction Factor (PTP)

Abstract

Weighted and average dose within a scan volume of a phantom have been evaluated and validated using two different devices and techniques. The Barracuda electrometer and Ion Chamber techniques were applied on a 16 slice Siemens CT scanner and the results compared to the console displayed CTDIw and CTDIvol values for accuracy and compared to each other for validation purposes. With fixed exposure parameter of 130kVp and varying tube current-time products from 140mAs to 300mAs for the CT head phantom examination, there were varying deviations in both the CTDIw and CTDIvol from the two techniques. Tube currents of 140 mAs, 240 mAs and 300 mAs yielded 3.5%, 0.61% and -6.45% deviations when the respective CTDIvol values for both techniques were compared. There were mean CTDIvol of (42.3 + 8.6) mGy and (42.1 + 8.1) mGy for Barracuda and Ion Chamber techniques respectively with an average deviation of 1.4 mGy between them, when the tube current-time products were varied from 140 – 300 mAs for the head phantom examination. Tube current-time products ranging from 80mAs – 220mAs were used for the CT body phantom examination and mean CTDIw measured were (16.6 + 6.7) mGy and (16.5 + 7.7) mGy for Barracuda and Ion Chamber techniques respectively with an average deviation of 1.0 mGy between them. The results of the study showed that the deviations from the techniques were within a range of CTDIw and CTDIvol values which were favorably comparable to other similar retrospective research works, thus, the Ion Chamber technique can be used in place of the technique currently in use.

References

  1. Goergen, S., Revell, A., & Walker, C. 2009. Computed Tomography (CT). Inside Radiology. Retrieved March 2, 2016 from http://www.nibib.nih.gov/science-education/sciencetopics/computedtomography-ct
  2. Bauhs, J. A., Vrieze, T. J., Primak, A. N., Bruesewitz, M. R., & McCollough, C. H. 2008. CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices. Radiographics, 28 (1): 245 – 253.
  3. Shope, T. B., Gagne, R. M., & Johnson, G. C. 1981. A method for describing the doses delivered       by transmission x-ray computed tomography. Medical Physics, 8(4): 488 - 495.
  4. AAPM. 2008. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT (AAPM          Report No.96). Report of AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee.
  5. AAPM. 2011. Site specific dose estimates (SSDE) in paediatric and adult body CT examinations         (AAPM Report No. 204). Report of AAPM Task Group 204 of AAPM. College Park, MD
  6. Shrimpton, P. C. 2004. Assessment of Patient Dose in CT. National Radiological Protection    Board, 5(5): 1–36
  7. Brix, G., Lechel, U., Veit, R., Truckenbrodt, R., Stamm, G., Coppenrath, E. M., et al. 2004. Assessment of a theoretical formalism for dose estimation in CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study. European Radiology, 14, 1275-1284.
  8. Hasford, F., Wyk, B. V., Mabhengu T., Vangu, M. D. T., Kyere, A. K., Amuasi, J. H. 2015. Determination of dose accuracy in CT examinations. Journal of Radiation Research and            Applied Sciences, 8(4): 489 – 492.
  9. Inkoom, S., Schandorf, C., Boadu, M., Emi-Reynolds, G., & Nkansah, A. 2014. Adult medical x-ray dose assessments for computed tomography procedures in Ghana - a review paper. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 19(1 & 2), 1-9
  10. Descamps, C., Gonzalez, M., Garrigo, E., Germanier, A., & Venencia, D. 2012. Measurements of the dose delivered during CT exams using AAPM task group report No. 111. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 13 (6): 3934 - 3942

Downloads

Published

2017-10-31

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

[1]
Abrokwa Sintim, Edem Sosu, Francis Hasford, Augustine Kyere, " Evaluation and Validation of Computed Tomography Dose Accuracy(CTDIw AND CTDIvol), International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology(IJSRSET), Print ISSN : 2395-1990, Online ISSN : 2394-4099, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp.999-1007, September-October-2017.