4.6 Article

Validation of calculation algorithms for organ doses in CT by measurements on a 5 year old paediatric phantom

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 11, 页码 4168-4182

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/11/4168

关键词

CT; organ dose; anthropomorphic phantom; Monte Carlo simulation

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [269912]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many organ dose calculation tools for computed tomography (CT) scans rely on the assumptions: (1) organ doses estimated for one CT scanner can be converted into organ doses for another CT scanner using the ratio of the Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI) between two CT scanners; and (2) helical scans can be approximated as the summation of axial slices covering the same scan range. The current study aims to validate experimentally these two assumptions. We performed organ dose measurements in a 5 year-old physical anthropomorphic phantom for five different CT scanners from four manufacturers. Absorbed doses to 22 organs were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters for head-to-torso scans. We then compared the measured organ doses with the values calculated from the National Cancer Institute dosimetry system for CT (NCICT) computer program, developed at the National Cancer Institute. Whereas the measured organ doses showed significant variability (coefficient of variation (CoV) up to 53% at 80 kV) across different scanner models, the CoV of organ doses normalised to CTDIvol substantially decreased (12% CoV on average at 80 kV). For most organs, the difference between measured and simulated organ doses was within +/- 20% except for the bone marrow, breasts and ovaries. The discrepancies were further explained by additional Monte Carlo calculations of organ doses using a voxel phantom developed from CT images of the physical phantom. The results demonstrate that organ doses calculated for one CT scanner can be used to assess organ doses from other CT scanners with 20% uncertainty (k = 1), for the scan settings considered in the study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据