z-logo
Premium
SU‐FF‐I‐28: A Critical Look at the Numerical Coefficients in CTDIVOL
Author(s) -
Bakalyar DM
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.2240267
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , dosimetry , cylinder , rotation (mathematics) , physics , homogeneous , scanner , beam (structure) , instant centre of rotation , position (finance) , optics , mathematics , nuclear medicine , geometry , medicine , finance , economics , thermodynamics
Purpose: To critically examine the assumptions leading to the formula for CTDI VOL , which uses measured CTDI values at the center and periphery to estimate the overall average dose to a homogeneous cylindrical phantom. Method and Materials: CTDI VOL is a widely used figure of merit that estimates the average dose delivered by a CT scan to standard homogeneous cylindrical cylinders and offers a means of comparing doses delivered by different machines, or by the same machine using different scanning parameters. The calculation of CTDI VOL requires the measurement of two CTDI values: CTDI E measured at the edge of the cylinder and CTDI C measured at the center. CTDI VOL= ( a ⋅ CTDI E+ b ⋅ CTDI C) / Pitch . The following three assumptions are made in order to determine a and b : 1): The phantom is a homogeneous cylinder positioned coaxially with the gantry. 2) The cylinder is exposed to a constant beam of radiation during the rotation of the gantry. 3) At any one instant during the scanner's rotation, the radiation density within the cylinder varies smoothly with position. Following a 360° rotation, assumptions 1 – 3 imply that the dose distribution is also cylindrically symmetric, smoothly varying, and at an extremum at the center. Results: The simplest result following from assumptions 1 – 3 is that a = b = 1/2. These do not agree with the values of a and b (2/3 and 1/3, respectively) that are used conventionally; these conventional values have the unphysical implication that the dose gradient at the center is discontinuous. Conclusion: CTDI VOL , as it is currently calculated, underestimates the relative contribution made by the central CTDI value to the average dose, leading to a significant systematic error in a number used by regulatory and accreditation agencies. Equal weighting provides a more accurate value and should be employed.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom