No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Dose equations for tube current modulation in CT scanning and the interpretation of the associated CTDIvol
1. R. L. Dixon, and A. C. Ballard, “Experimental validation of a versatile system of CT dosimetry using a conventional ion chamber: Beyond CTDI100,” Med. Phys. 34(8), 3399–3413 (2007).
2. R. L. Dixon and J. M. Boone, “Analytical equations for CT dose profiles derived using a scatter kernel of Monte Carlo parentage with broad applicability to CT dosimetry problems,” Med. Phys. 38, 4251–4264 (2011).
3.“Medical Electrical Equipment—Part 2-44: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of x-ray equipment for computed tomography,” International Standard IEC 60601-2-44, 3rd ed. (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009).
“Comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of radiation dose in x-ray computed tomography
,” Report of AAPM Task Group 111 (American Association of Physicists in Medicine College Park
, MD, 2010
) [available URL: http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_111.pdf
7. R. L. Dixon and J. M. Boone, “Cone beam CT dosimetry: A unified and self-consistent approach including all scan modalities—with or without phantom motion,” Med. Phys. 37, 2703–2718 (2010).
8. A. C. Turner et al., “The feasibility of a scanner-independent technique to estimate organ dose using CTDIvol to account for differences between scanners,” Med. Phys. 37, 1816–1825 (2010).
9. W. Leitz, B. Axelson, and G. Szendro, “Computed tomography dose assessment: A practical approach,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 57, 377–380 (1995).
10. R. N. Bracewell, The Fourier Transform and its Applications, 3rd ed. (McGraw Hill, Boston, 2000).
11. J. A. Bauhs, T. J. Vrieze, A. N. Primak, M. R. Bruesewitz, and C. J. McCollough, “CT dosimetry: Comparison of measurement techniques and devices,” Radiographics 28, 245–253 (2008).
12. R. L. Dixon, M. T. Munley, and E. Bayram, “An improved analytical model for CT dose simulation with a new look at the theory of CT dose,” Med. Phys. 32, 3712–3728 (2005).
14. S. Mori, M. Endo, K. Nishizawa, T. Tsunoo, T. Aoyama, H. Fujiwara, and K. Murase, “Enlarged longitudinal dose profiles in cone-beam CT and the need for modified dosimetry,” Med. Phys. 32, 1061–1069 (2005).
15. X. Li, D. Zhang, and B. Liu, “Equations for CT dose calculations on axial lines based on the principle of symmetry,” Med. Phys. 39, 5347–5352 (2012).
Article metrics loading...
The scanner-reported CTDI vol for automatic tube current modulation (TCM) has a different physical meaning from the traditional CTDI vol at constant mA, resulting in the dichotomy “CTDIvol of the first and second kinds” for which a physical interpretation is sought in hopes of establishing some commonality between the two.
Rigorous equations are derived to describe the accumulated dose distributions for TCM. A comparison with formulae for scanner-reported CTDI vol clearly identifies the source of their differences. Graphical dose simulations are also provided for a variety of TCM tube current distributions (including constant mA), all having the same scanner-reported CTDI vol.
These convolution equations and simulations show that the local dose at z depends only weakly on the local tube currenti(z) due to the strong influence of scatter from all other locations along z, and that the “local CTDI vol(z)” does not represent a local dose but rather only a relative i(z) ≡ mA(z). TCM is a shift-variant technique to which the CTDI-paradigm does not apply and its application to TCM leads to a CTDI vol of the second kind which lacks relevance.
While the traditional CTDI vol at constant mA conveys useful information (the peak dose at the center of the scan length), CTDI vol of the second kind conveys no useful information about the associated TCM dose distribution it purportedly represents and its physical interpretation remains elusive. On the other hand, the total energy absorbed E (“integral dose”) as well as its surrogate DLP remain robust between variable i(z) TCM and constant current i 0 techniques, both depending only on the total mAs = ⟨i⟩t 0 = i 0 t 0 during the beam-on time t 0.
Full text loading...
Most read this month