skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers

Abstract

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 < 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); andmore » was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r > 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.« less

Authors:
 [1];  [2]
  1. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY (United States)
  2. King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649308
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; IMAGE PROCESSING; MANUFACTURERS; PHANTOMS; SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS

Citation Formats

Al-Senan, R, and Demirkaya, O. SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956944.
Al-Senan, R, & Demirkaya, O. SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956944.
Al-Senan, R, and Demirkaya, O. 2016. "SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956944.
@article{osti_22649308,
title = {SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers},
author = {Al-Senan, R and Demirkaya, O},
abstractNote = {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 < 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); and was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r > 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.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956944},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: A fundamental measure performed during an annual physics CT evaluation confirms that system displayed CTDIvol nearly matches the independently measured value in phantom. For wide-beam (z-direction) CT scanners, AAPM Report 111 defined an ideal measurement method; however, the method often lacks practicality. The purpose of this preliminary study is to develop a set of conversion factors for a wide-beam CT scanner, relating the CTDIvol measured with a conventional setup (single CTDI phantom) versus the AAPM Report 111 approach (three abutting CTDI phantoms). Methods: For both the body CTDI and head CTDI, two acquisition setups were used: A) conventional singlemore » phantom and B) triple phantom. Of primary concern were the larger nominal beam widths for which a standard CTDI phantom setup would not provide adequate scatter conditions. Nominal beam width (160 or 120 mm) and kVp (100, 120, 140) were modulated based on the underlying clinical protocol. Exposure measurements were taken using a CT pencil ion chamber in the center and 12 o’clock position, and CTDIvol was calculated with ‘nT’ limited to 100 mm. A conversion factor (CF) was calculated as the ratio of CTDIvol measured in setup B versus setup A. Results: For body CTDI, the CF ranged from 1.04 up to 1.10, indicating a 4–10% difference between usage of one and three phantoms. For a nominal beam width of 160 mm, the CF did vary with selected kVp. For head CTDI at nominal beam widths of 120 and 160 mm, the CF was 1.00 and 1.05, respectively, independent of the kVp used (100, 120, and 140). Conclusions: A clear understanding of the manufacturer method of estimating the displayed CTDIvol is important when interpreting annual test results, as the acquisition setup may lead to an error of up to 10%. With appropriately defined CF, single phantom use is feasible.« less
  • To evaluate the accuracy in detection of small and low-contrast regions using a high-definition diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scanner compared with a radiotherapy CT simulation scanner. A custom-made phantom with cylindrical holes of diameters ranging from 2-9 mm was filled with 9 different concentrations of contrast solution. The phantom was scanned using a 16-slice multidetector CT simulation scanner (LightSpeed RT16, General Electric Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI) and a 64-slice high-definition diagnostic CT scanner (Discovery CT750 HD, General Electric Healthcare). The low-contrast regions of interest (ROIs) were delineated automatically upon their full width at half maximum of the CT number profile inmore » Hounsfield units on a treatment planning workstation. Two conformal indexes, CI{sub in}, and CI{sub out}, were calculated to represent the percentage errors of underestimation and overestimation in the automated contours compared with their actual sizes. Summarizing the conformal indexes of different sizes and contrast concentration, the means of CI{sub in} and CI{sub out} for the CT simulation scanner were 33.7% and 60.9%, respectively, and 10.5% and 41.5% were found for the diagnostic CT scanner. The mean differences between the 2 scanners' CI{sub in} and CI{sub out} were shown to be significant with p < 0.001. A descending trend of the index values was observed as the ROI size increases for both scanners, which indicates an improved accuracy when the ROI size increases, whereas no observable trend was found in the contouring accuracy with respect to the contrast levels in this study. Images acquired by the diagnostic CT scanner allow higher accuracy on size estimation compared with the CT simulation scanner in this study. We recommend using a diagnostic CT scanner to scan patients with small lesions (<1 cm in diameter) for radiotherapy treatment planning, especially for those pending for stereotactic radiosurgery in which accurate delineation of small-sized, low-contrast regions is important for dose calculation.« less
  • Purpose: Monte Carlo radiation transport techniques have made it possible to accurately estimate the radiation dose to radiosensitive organs in patient models from scans performed with modern multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) scanners. However, there is considerable variation in organ doses across scanners, even when similar acquisition conditions are used. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a technique to estimate organ doses that would be scanner independent. This was accomplished by assessing the ability of CTDI{sub vol} measurements to account for differences in MDCT scanners that lead to organ dose differences. Methods: Monte Carlo simulationsmore » of 64-slice MDCT scanners from each of the four major manufacturers were performed. An adult female patient model from the GSF family of voxelized phantoms was used in which all ICRP Publication 103 radiosensitive organs were identified. A 120 kVp, full-body helical scan with a pitch of 1 was simulated for each scanner using similar scan protocols across scanners. From each simulated scan, the radiation dose to each organ was obtained on a per mA s basis (mGy/mA s). In addition, CTDI{sub vol} values were obtained from each scanner for the selected scan parameters. Then, to demonstrate the feasibility of generating organ dose estimates from scanner-independent coefficients, the simulated organ dose values resulting from each scanner were normalized by the CTDI{sub vol} value for those acquisition conditions. Results: CTDI{sub vol} values across scanners showed considerable variation as the coefficient of variation (CoV) across scanners was 34.1%. The simulated patient scans also demonstrated considerable differences in organ dose values, which varied by up to a factor of approximately 2 between some of the scanners. The CoV across scanners for the simulated organ doses ranged from 26.7% (for the adrenals) to 37.7% (for the thyroid), with a mean CoV of 31.5% across all organs. However, when organ doses are normalized by CTDI{sub vol} values, the differences across scanners become very small. For the CTDI{sub vol}, normalized dose values the CoVs across scanners for different organs ranged from a minimum of 2.4% (for skin tissue) to a maximum of 8.5% (for the adrenals) with a mean of 5.2%. Conclusions: This work has revealed that there is considerable variation among modern MDCT scanners in both CTDI{sub vol} and organ dose values. Because these variations are similar, CTDI{sub vol} can be used as a normalization factor with excellent results. This demonstrates the feasibility of establishing scanner-independent organ dose estimates by using CTDI{sub vol} to account for the differences between scanners.« less
  • Purpose: To propose a method other than CTDI phantom measurements for routine CT dosimetry QA. This consists of taking a series of air exposure measurements and calculating a factor for converting from this exposure measurement to the protocol's associated head or body CTDI value using DLP. The data presented are the ratios of phantom DLP to air exposure ratios for different scanners, as well as error in the displayed CTDI. Methods: For each scanner, the CTDI is measured at all available tube voltages using both the head and body phantoms. Then, the exposure is measured using a pencil chamber inmore » air at isocenter. A ratio of phantom DLP to exposure in air for a given protocol may be calculated and used for converting a simple air dose measurement to a head or body CTDI value. For our routine QA, the exposure in air for different collimations, mAs, and kVp is measured, and displayed CTDI is recorded. Therefore, the ratio calculated may convert these exposures to CTDI values that may then be compared to the displayed CTDI for a large range of acquisition parameter combinations. Results: It was found that all scanners tend to have a ratio factor that slightly increases with kVp. Also, Philips scanners appear to have less of a dependence on kVp; whereas, GE scanners have a lower ratio at lower kVp. The use of air exposure times the DLP conversion yielded CTDI values that were less than 10% different from the displayed CTDI on several scanners. Conclusion: This method may be used as a primary method for CT dosimetry QA. As a result of the ease of measurement, a dosimetry metric specific to that scanner may be calculated for a wide variety of CT protocols, which could also be used to monitor display CTDI value accuracy.« less