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. Wed . "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 = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}