Evaluation of direct point dose estimation based on the distribution of the size-specific dose estimate
- PMID: 39083162
- DOI: 10.1007/s13246-024-01465-2
Evaluation of direct point dose estimation based on the distribution of the size-specific dose estimate
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the point doses using a distribution of the size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) from axial CT images of in-house phantoms having diameters from 8 to 40 cm. In-house phantoms made of polyester-resin (PESR) mixed with methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP) were used. The phantoms were built with different diameter sizes of 8, 16, 24, 32, and 40 cm. The phantoms were scanned by Siemens a SOMATOM Perspective-128 slice CT scanner with constant input parameters. The point doses were interpolated from the central SSDE (SSDEc) and the peripheral SSDE (SSDEp). The SSDEc and SSDEp were calculated from the SSDE with h- and k-factors. The point doses were compared to the direct measurements using the nanoDot™ optically-stimulated luminescence dosimeter (OSLD) in dedicated holes on the phantoms. It was found that the point dose decreases as the phantom diameter increased. The doses obtained using two approaches differed by 11% on average. The highest difference was 40% and the lowest difference was < 1%. It was found that dose based on the SSDE concept tended to be higher compared to the measured dose by OSLD. Point dose estimation using the concept of SSDE distribution can be considered an alternative for accurate and simple estimation. This approach still requires improvements to increase its accuracy and its application to estimate the organ dose needs further investigation.
Keywords: OSL dosimeter; Point dose; Size-specific dose estimates; Water-equivalent diameter.
© 2024. Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: Choirul Anam and Geoff Dougherty are developers of IndoseCT. Other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
References
-
- Huang CC, Effendi FF, Kosik RO et al (2023) Utilization of CT and MRI scanning in Taiwan, 2000–2017. Insights Imaging. 14(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01364-2
-
- Smith-Bindman R, Kwan ML, Marlow EC et al (2019) Trends in use of medical imaging in US health care systems and in Ontario, Canada, 2000–2016. JAMA 322(9):843–856. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.11456 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Kwan ML, Miglioretti DL, Marlow EC et al (2019) Trends in medical imaging during pregnancy in the United States and Ontario, Canada, 1996 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2(7):e197249. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7249
-
- Gibbons AT, Casar Berazaluce AM, Hanke RE et al (2020) Avoiding unnecessary bronchoscopy in children with suspected foreign body aspiration using computed tomography. J Pediatr Surg 55(1):176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.09.045 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Choi HK, Mazzone PJ (2022) Lung Cancer Screening. Med Clin North Am 106(6):1041–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2022.07.007 - DOI - PubMed