Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 2;199(3):ncac273 277 289-234.
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncac273.

ASSESSMENT OF PCXMC MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS IN SLOT-SCANNING-BASED EXAMINATIONS: COMPARISON WITH IN-PHANTOM THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY

A Piai  1 , A Loria  1 , P Tiberio  1 , S Magnino  2 , M Campoleoni  3 , L M Sconfienza  4   5 , A Del Vecchio  1
Affiliations

ASSESSMENT OF PCXMC MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS IN SLOT-SCANNING-BASED EXAMINATIONS: COMPARISON WITH IN-PHANTOM THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY

A Piai et al. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. .

Abstract

Slot-scanning technology is nowadays a valid solution for the follow-up of chronic musculoskeletal disorders on children and adolescent patients, but there is no commercial software designed for simulating this X-ray beam geometry. PC Program for X-ray Monte Carlo (PCXMC) is a widespread Monte Carlo software developed for dose computation in projection radiography. In this study, experimental measurements were performed to evaluate its applicability in examinations with a slit-beam device. Physical phantoms corresponding to an adult and a 5-y-old child with calibrated thermoluminescent dosemeters were used for experiments. Different simulation approaches were investigated. Differences between measured and calculated organ doses ranged from -95 to 67% and were statistically significant for almost all organs. For both patients, PCXMC underestimated the effective dose of about 25%. This study suggests that PCXMC is not suited for organ dose evaluation in examinations with slot-scanning devices. It is still a useful tool for effective dose estimation when a proper correction factor is applied.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Acquisition setup. The pediatric (on the left) and adult (on the right) anthropomorphic phantoms were placed at the center of the EOS scanning chamber and centered using laser-lights guides.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Picture of the calibration setup. TLD cards were place side-by-side with the RaySafe dosemeter on a Styrofoam support. Unfiltered cards were used for the measurements.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of organ doses calculated with contiguous 5 mm high (Method (2)) and 1 mm high (Method (2′)) slot beams. Results refer to pediatric acquisitions performed at SL 2. Error bars represent ±2 standard deviations.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of organ doses calculated with Method (1) with finite and infinite FSD. Results refer to pediatric acquisitions performed at SL 2. Error bars represent ±2 standard deviations.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of organ doses measured with TLDs and computed with PCXMC software for acquisitions performed with the adult phantom. Simulation Methods (1) and (2) are considered. Error bars represent ±2 standard deviations.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of organ doses measured with TLDs and computed with PCXMC software for acquisitions performed with the pediatric phantom at SLs 2–4. Where available, simulation Methods (1) and (2) are considered. Error bars represent ±2 standard deviations.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. ICRP . ICRP Publication 103: The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. (Ann ICRP) Vol. 37 (2007). - PubMed
    1. Tapiovaara, M., Lakkisto, M., Servomaa, A. and Siiskonen, T. A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations. No. STUK-A–139, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (STUK) (1993).
    1. Melhem, E., Assi, A., El Rachkidi, R. and Ghanem, I. EOS® biplanar X-ray imaging: concept, developments, benefits, and limitations. J. Child. Orthop. 10, 1–14 (2016). 10.1007/s11832-016-0713-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deschênes, S., Charron, G., Beaudoin, G., Labelle, H., Dubois, J., Miron, M. C. and Parent, S. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager. Spine 35, 989–994 (2010). 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bdcaa4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Luo, T. D., Stans, A. A., Schueler, B. A. and Larson, A. N. Cumulative radiation exposure with EOS imaging compared with standard spine radiographs. Spine Deform. 3, 144–150 (2015). 10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.049 - DOI - PubMed