Literature DB >> 28940306

Calibration and error analysis of metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor dosimeters for computed tomography radiation dosimetry.

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.   

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.
© 2017 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MOSFET; calibration; dosimetry; ion chamber; measurement error

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28940306      PMCID: PMC5734630          DOI: 10.1002/mp.12592

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  16 in total

1.  Evaluation of a MOSFET radiation sensor for the measurement of entrance surface dose in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  D J Peet; M D Pryor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  A patient-specific quality assurance study on absolute dose verification using ionization chambers of different volumes in RapidArc treatments.

Authors:  S A Syam Kumar; Prabakar Sukumar; Padmanaban Sriram; Dhanabalan Rajasekaran; Srinu Aketi; Nagarajan Vivekanandan
Journal:  Med Dosim       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 1.482

3.  Establishing a standard calibration methodology for MOSFET detectors in computed tomography dosimetry.

Authors:  S L Brady; R A Kaufman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Application of commercial MOSFET detectors for in vivo dosimetry in the therapeutic x-ray range from 80 kV to 250 kV.

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

5.  Radiation dose to the female breast from 16-MDCT body protocols.

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

6.  Validation of metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for organ dose assessment during CT: comparison with thermoluminescent dosimetry.

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

Review 7.  CT dosimetry: comparison of measurement techniques and devices.

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

8.  Analytical equations for CT dose profiles derived using a scatter kernel of Monte Carlo parentage with broad applicability to CT dosimetry problems.

Authors:  Robert L Dixon; John M Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  A phantom-based evaluation of three commercially available patient organ shields for computed tomography X-ray examinations in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Jamie Huggett; William Mukonoweshuro; Robert Loader
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 0.972

10.  Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction.

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

View more
  3 in total

1.  Dosimetric assessment of the exposure of radiotherapy patients due to cone-beam CT procedures.

Authors:  Mariana Baptista; Salvatore Di Maria; Sandra Vieira; Joana Santos; Joana Pereira; Miguel Pereira; Pedro Vaz
Journal:  Radiat Environ Biophys       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Cardiac-Specific Conversion Factors to Estimate Radiation Effective Dose From Dose-Length Product in Computed Tomography.

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

3.  Application of low-dose CT to the creation of 3D-printed kidney and perinephric tissue models for laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Authors:  Guan Li; Jie Dong; Zhiqiang Cao; Jinbao Wang; Dongbing Cao; Xin Zhang; Longjiang Zhang; Guangming Lu
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 4.452

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.