The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 69, Issue 817 33-41, Copyright © 1996 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Calculation of computed tomography dose index to effective dose conversion factors based on measurement of the dose profile along the fan shaped beam

JT Jansen, J Geleijns, D Zweers, FW Schultz and J Zoetelief
TNO-ME Radiological Service, Centre for Radiological Protection and Dosimetry, Arnhem, Netherlands.

The variation in computed tomography dose index (CTDI) to effective dose conversion factors between different types of CT scanner is large (i.e. a factor of about 2 due to differences in beam shaping filters). Consequently, scanner specific conversion factors have to be applied. For some types of scanner, however, detailed information on the construction of beam shaping filters is not provided by the manufacturers. It is of interest to investigate the use of measured dose profiles for the calculation of conversion factors. Based upon measured dose profiles, two appropriate photon spectra selected on the basis of measured half value layers, gender specific adult phantoms Adam and Eva, and the Monte Carlo neutron and photon radiation transport code (MCNP), organ and effective dose conversion factors are calculated. To validate the method, a comparison is made between results for measured and calculated beam profiles for a Philips Tomoscan 350. The results in terms of effective dose per slice per unit of CTDI are compared with published data. Relative difference in conversion factors per slice averaged over all slices used for the calculations is 13 +/- 4% between the two spectra, 10.2 +/- 0.2% between measured and calculated beam profiles and 50 +/- 191% between the phantoms of different gender. The relative difference between the averaged results for the Adam and Eva phantoms and published results for a hermaphrodite phantom is on average equal to or less than 15 +/- 13%, depending on the spectrum and beam profile used, although larger differences can occur for specific slices. It is concluded that CTDI to effective dose conversion factors can be derived on the basis of measured beam profiles.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. A. Castellano, D. R. Dance, and P. M. Evans CT dosimetry: getting the best from the adult Cristy phantom Radiat Prot Dosimetry, May 17, 2005; 114(1-3): 321 - 325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Iannaccone, A. Laghi, C. Catalano, J. A. Brink, F. Mangiapane, S. Trenna, F. Piacentini, and R. Passariello Detection of Colorectal Lesions: Lower-Dose Multi-Detector Row Helical CT Colonography Compared with Conventional Colonoscopy Radiology, December 1, 2003; 229(3): 775 - 781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Rybicki, R. D. Nawfel, P. F. Judy, S. Ledbetter, R. L. Dyson, P. S. Halt, K. M. Shu, and D. B. Nunez Jr. Skin and Thyroid Dosimetry in Cervical Spine Screening: Two Methods for Evaluation and a Comparison Between a Helical CT and Radiographic Trauma Series Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2002; 179(4): 933 - 937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P Aviles Lucas, I A Castellano, D R Dance, and E Vano Carruana Analysis of surface dose variation in CT procedures Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2001; 74(888): 1128 - 1136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Nawfel, P. F. Judy, S. G. Silverman, S. Hooton, K. Tuncali, and D. F. Adams Patient and Personnel Exposure during CT Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures Radiology, July 1, 2000; 216(1): 180 - 184. [Abstract] [Full Text]