Robert L Dixon1, John M Boone2. 1. Department of Radiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157. 2. Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California 95817.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anomalous, scanner-reported values of CTDIvol for stationary phantom/table protocols (having elevated values of CTDIvol over 300% higher than the actual dose to the phantom) have been observed; which are well-beyond the typical accuracy expected of CTDIvol as a phantom dose. Recognition of these outliers as "bad data" is important to users of CT dose index tracking systems (e.g., ACR DIR), and a method for recognition and correction is provided. METHODS: Rigorous methods and equations are presented which describe the dose distributions for stationary-table CT. A comparison with formulae for scanner-reported values of CTDIvol clearly identifies the source of these anomalies. RESULTS: For the stationary table, use of the CTDI100 formula (applicable to a moving phantom only) overestimates the dose due to extra scatter and also includes an overbeaming correction, both of which are nonexistent when the phantom (or patient) is held stationary. The reported DLP remains robust for the stationary phantom. CONCLUSIONS: The CTDI-paradigm does not apply in the case of a stationary phantom and simpler nonintegral equations suffice. A method of correction of the currently reported CTDIvol using the approach-to-equilibrium formula H(a) and an overbeaming correction factor serves to scale the reported CTDIvol values to more accurate levels for stationary-table CT, as well as serving as an indicator in the detection of "bad data."
PURPOSE: Anomalous, scanner-reported values of CTDIvol for stationary phantom/table protocols (having elevated values of CTDIvol over 300% higher than the actual dose to the phantom) have been observed; which are well-beyond the typical accuracy expected of CTDIvol as a phantom dose. Recognition of these outliers as "bad data" is important to users of CT dose index tracking systems (e.g., ACR DIR), and a method for recognition and correction is provided. METHODS: Rigorous methods and equations are presented which describe the dose distributions for stationary-table CT. A comparison with formulae for scanner-reported values of CTDIvol clearly identifies the source of these anomalies. RESULTS: For the stationary table, use of the CTDI100 formula (applicable to a moving phantom only) overestimates the dose due to extra scatter and also includes an overbeaming correction, both of which are nonexistent when the phantom (or patient) is held stationary. The reported DLP remains robust for the stationary phantom. CONCLUSIONS: The CTDI-paradigm does not apply in the case of a stationary phantom and simpler nonintegral equations suffice. A method of correction of the currently reported CTDIvol using the approach-to-equilibrium formula H(a) and an overbeaming correction factor serves to scale the reported CTDIvol values to more accurate levels for stationary-table CT, as well as serving as an indicator in the detection of "bad data."
Authors: Jang-Hwan Choi; Dragos Constantin; Arundhuti Ganguly; Erin Girard; Richard L Morin; Robert L Dixon; Rebecca Fahrig Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Elliott J Stepusin; Daniel J Long; Kayla R Ficarrotta; David E Hintenlang; Wesley E Bolch Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 4.071