Organ dose in CT: Comparison between measurements and computational methods

Purpose: This study aims to compare two methods for the organ dose evaluation in computed tomography (CT) in the head- and thorax regions: an experimental method, using radiochromic films, and a computational one, using a commercial software.Methods: Gafchromic & REG; XR-QA2 and EBT-3 were characterized in terms of energetic, angular, and irradiation configurations dependence. Two free-in-air irradiation calibration configurations were employed using a CT scanner: with the sensitive surface of the film orthogonal (OC) and parallel (PC) to the beam axis. Different dose-response curves were obtained by varying the irradiation configurations and the beam quality (BQ). Subsequently, films were irradiated within an anthropomorphic phantom using CT-thorax and -head protocols, and the organ dose values obtained were compared with those provided by the commercial software.Results: At different configurations, an unchanged dose response was achieved with EBT-3, while a dose response of 15% was obtained with XR-QA2. By varying BQ, XR-QA2 showed a different response below 10%, while EBT-3 showed a variation below 5% for dose values >20 mGy. For films irradiation angle equal to 90 degrees, the normalized to 0 degrees relative response was 41% for the XR-QA2 model and 83% for the EBT-3 one. Organ dose values obtained with EBT-3 for both configurations and with XR-QA2 for OC were in agreement with the DW values, showing percentage discrepancies of less than 25%. Conclusions: The obtained results showed the potential of EBT-3 in CT patient dosimetry since the lower angular dependence, compared to XR-QA2, compensates for low sensitivity in the diagnostic dose range.

Automated summary

This study compares two methods for organ dose evaluation in CT: an experimental method using radiochromic films and a computational method using commercial software. The results show the potential of EBT-3 in CT patient dosimetry, as its lower angular dependence compensates for low sensitivity in the diagnostic dose range compared to XR-QA2.