| Literature DB >> 34189115 |
Delaram Pakravan1, Farshid Babapour Mofrad2, Mohammad Reza Deevband3, Mahdi Ghorbani3, Hamidreza Pouraliakbar4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is currently known as a versatile imaging tool in the clinic used for almost all types of cancers. The major issue of CT is the health risk, belonging to X-ray radiation exposure. Concerning this, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is recognized as a key computational technique for estimating and optimizing radiation dose. CT simulation with MCNP/MCNPX MC code has an inherent problem due to the lack of a fan-beam shaped source model. This limitation increases the run time and highly decreases the number of photons passing the body or phantom. Recently, a beta version of MCNP code called MCNP-FBSM (Fan-Beam Source Model) has been developed to pave the simulation way of CT imaging procedure, removing the need of the collimator. This is a new code, which needs to be validated in all aspects.Entities:
Keywords: Dosimetry; Fan-beam CT; Monte Carlo Method; System performance; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Year: 2021 PMID: 34189115 PMCID: PMC8236108 DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2012-1254
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Phys Eng ISSN: 2251-7200
Details of the experimental scan parameters to perform free-in-air computed tomography dose index measurements.
| Scan Type | Axial |
|---|---|
| Source-to-image detector distance (mm) | 950 |
| Source-to-isocenter distance (mm) | 540 |
| Fan angle (degrees) | 56 |
| Tube voltage (kVp) | 120 |
| Anode-inherent and additional filter (mm) | W-Al (3.25) and Cu (0.1) |
| Tube current-time product (mAs) | 350 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 40 |
| No. of channels | 64 |
| Channel width (mm) | 0.625 |
| Bowtie filter | Small, Large |
Figure 1A representation of the bowtie filter module along with its Aluminum holder used in the General Electric LightSpeedTM Volume Computed Tomography scanner.
Figure 2A representation of the standard/routine dosimetry phantoms (a) and a 10 cm pencil ionization chamber (b) used for measurements of X-ray computed tomography dose and radiation exposure, respectively.
Figure 3Calculated (a) filtered X-ray spectra for different tube potentials, (b) the conversion factor as a function of photon energy for transferring polymethyl methacrylate to air dose.
Figure 4Mean free-in-air computed tomography dose index values as a function of different tube potentials and slice thicknesses for (a) small bowtie filter, and (b) large bowtie filter, computed tomography dose index values as a function of various tube voltages and beam widths for (c) head, and (d) body phantoms, comparing the ImPACT data, and our simulated data obtained by our developed CT simulator demonstrates 4.2% difference, averaged across all dose index values.
Computed tomography dose index values in air and head and body dosimetry phantoms and standard deviations obtained under the same exposure condition indicated in Table 1, comparing our results and other previously published data.
| Number | Work | CTDIair Small bowtie filter | CTDIair Large bowtie filter | CTDIw Small bowtie filter | CTDIw Large bowtie filter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Simulated Data | 29.34±0.2 | 23.7±0.1 | 18.73±0.1 | 9.04±0.2 |
| 2 | Experimented Data | 28.03±0.3 | 23.01±0.5 | 17.92±0.4 | 8.62±0.5 |
| 3 | 30.01 | 23.99 | 19.32 | 9.37 | |
| 4 | General Electric Manufacturer’s data [ | 27.46±0.4 | 22.95±0.4 | 16.31±0.4 | 7.92±0.4 |
| 5 | Experimental Published data [ | 29.5±0.5 | 23.8±0.3 | 18.1±0.3 | 8.9±0.1 |
| Difference (1 vs 2) | 4.7% | 3.0% | 4.5% | 4.9% | |
| Difference (1 vs 3) | 2.3% | 1.23% | 3.1% | 3.5% | |
| Difference (1 vs 4) | 6.9% | 3.3% | 14.8% | 14.14% | |
| Difference (1 vs 5) | 0.54% | 0.42% | 3.48% | 1.57% |
This reference has not revealed any standard deviation.
CTDI: Computed tomography dose index