Sigal Trattner1, Peter Prinsen2, Jens Wiegert2, Elazar-Lars Gerland3, Efrat Shefer3, Tom Morton4, Carla M Thompson5,6,7, Yoad Yagil3, Bin Cheng8, Sachin Jambawalikar9, Rani Al-Senan9, Maxwell Amurao9, Sandra S Halliburton4,5,6,7, Andrew J Einstein1,9. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 2. Philips Research, Eindhoven, 5656AE, The Netherlands. 3. Philips Healthcare, Haifa, 31004, Israel. 4. Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, 44143, USA. 5. Division of Radiology, Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 7. Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) serve as a helpful tool for organ radiation dosimetry and their use has grown in computed tomography (CT). While different approaches have been used for MOSFET calibration, those using the commonly available 100 mm pencil ionization chamber have not incorporated measurements performed throughout its length, and moreover, no previous work has rigorously evaluated the multiple sources of error involved in MOSFET calibration. In this paper, we propose a new MOSFET calibration approach to translate MOSFET voltage measurements into absorbed dose from CT, based on serial measurements performed throughout the length of a 100-mm ionization chamber, and perform an analysis of the errors of MOSFET voltage measurements and four sources of error in calibration. METHODS: MOSFET calibration was performed at two sites, to determine single calibration factors for tube potentials of 80, 100, and 120 kVp, using a 100-mm-long pencil ion chamber and a cylindrical computed tomography dose index (CTDI) phantom of 32 cm diameter. The dose profile along the 100-mm ion chamber axis was sampled in 5 mm intervals by nine MOSFETs in the nine holes of the CTDI phantom. Variance of the absorbed dose was modeled as a sum of the MOSFET voltage measurement variance and the calibration factor variance, the latter being comprised of three main subcomponents: ionization chamber reading variance, MOSFET-to-MOSFET variation and a contribution related to the fact that the average calibration factor of a few MOSFETs was used as an estimate for the average value of all MOSFETs. MOSFET voltage measurement error was estimated based on sets of repeated measurements. The calibration factor overall voltage measurement error was calculated from the above analysis. RESULTS: Calibration factors determined were close to those reported in the literature and by the manufacturer (~3 mV/mGy), ranging from 2.87 to 3.13 mV/mGy. The error σV of a MOSFET voltage measurement was shown to be proportional to the square root of the voltage V: σV=cV where c = 0.11 mV. A main contributor to the error in the calibration factor was the ionization chamber reading error with 5% error. The usage of a single calibration factor for all MOSFETs introduced an additional error of about 5-7%, depending on the number of MOSFETs that were used to determine the single calibration factor. The expected overall error in a high-dose region (~30 mGy) was estimated to be about 8%, compared to 6% when an individual MOSFET calibration was performed. For a low-dose region (~3 mGy), these values were 13% and 12%. CONCLUSIONS: A MOSFET calibration method was developed using a 100-mm pencil ion chamber and a CTDI phantom, accompanied by an absorbed dose error analysis reflecting multiple sources of measurement error. When using a single calibration factor, per tube potential, for different MOSFETs, only a small error was introduced into absorbed dose determinations, thus supporting the use of a single calibration factor for experiments involving many MOSFETs, such as those required to accurately estimate radiation effective dose.
PURPOSE:Metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs) serve as a helpful tool for organ radiation dosimetry and their use has grown in computed tomography (CT). While different approaches have been used for MOSFET calibration, those using the commonly available 100 mm pencil ionization chamber have not incorporated measurements performed throughout its length, and moreover, no previous work has rigorously evaluated the multiple sources of error involved in MOSFET calibration. In this paper, we propose a new MOSFET calibration approach to translate MOSFET voltage measurements into absorbed dose from CT, based on serial measurements performed throughout the length of a 100-mm ionization chamber, and perform an analysis of the errors of MOSFET voltage measurements and four sources of error in calibration. METHODS: MOSFET calibration was performed at two sites, to determine single calibration factors for tube potentials of 80, 100, and 120 kVp, using a 100-mm-long pencil ion chamber and a cylindrical computed tomography dose index (CTDI) phantom of 32 cm diameter. The dose profile along the 100-mm ion chamber axis was sampled in 5 mm intervals by nine MOSFETs in the nine holes of the CTDI phantom. Variance of the absorbed dose was modeled as a sum of the MOSFET voltage measurement variance and the calibration factor variance, the latter being comprised of three main subcomponents: ionization chamber reading variance, MOSFET-to-MOSFET variation and a contribution related to the fact that the average calibration factor of a few MOSFETs was used as an estimate for the average value of all MOSFETs. MOSFET voltage measurement error was estimated based on sets of repeated measurements. The calibration factor overall voltage measurement error was calculated from the above analysis. RESULTS: Calibration factors determined were close to those reported in the literature and by the manufacturer (~3 mV/mGy), ranging from 2.87 to 3.13 mV/mGy. The error σV of a MOSFET voltage measurement was shown to be proportional to the square root of the voltage V: σV=cV where c = 0.11 mV. A main contributor to the error in the calibration factor was the ionization chamber reading error with 5% error. The usage of a single calibration factor for all MOSFETs introduced an additional error of about 5-7%, depending on the number of MOSFETs that were used to determine the single calibration factor. The expected overall error in a high-dose region (~30 mGy) was estimated to be about 8%, compared to 6% when an individual MOSFET calibration was performed. For a low-dose region (~3 mGy), these values were 13% and 12%. CONCLUSIONS: A MOSFET calibration method was developed using a 100-mm pencil ion chamber and a CTDI phantom, accompanied by an absorbed dose error analysis reflecting multiple sources of measurement error. When using a single calibration factor, per tube potential, for different MOSFETs, only a small error was introduced into absorbed dose determinations, thus supporting the use of a single calibration factor for experiments involving many MOSFETs, such as those required to accurately estimate radiation effective dose.
Authors: Christian Ehringfeld; Susanne Schmid; Karin Poljanc; Christian Kirisits; Hannes Aiginger; Dietmar Georg Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-01-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Lynne M Hurwitz; Terry T Yoshizumi; Robert E Reiman; Erik K Paulson; Donald P Frush; Giao T Nguyen; Greta I Toncheva; Philip C Goodman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Terry T Yoshizumi; Philip C Goodman; Donald P Frush; Giao Nguyen; Greta Toncheva; Maksudur Sarder; Lottie Barnes Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: John A Bauhs; Thomas J Vrieze; Andrew N Primak; Michael R Bruesewitz; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Radiographics Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Lynne M Hurwitz; Robert E Reiman; Terry T Yoshizumi; Philip C Goodman; Greta Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; Carolyn Lowry Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sigal Trattner; Sandra Halliburton; Carla M Thompson; Yanping Xu; Anjali Chelliah; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Boyu Peng; M Robert Peters; Jill E Jacobs; Munir Ghesani; James J Jang; Hussein Al-Khalidi; Andrew J Einstein Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08-16