Premium
SU‐G‐IeP3‐02: Characteristics of In‐Vivo MOSFET Dosimeters for Diagnostic X‐Ray Low‐Dose Measurements
Author(s) -
Li S,
Ali S,
Harper K,
Liang Q,
Serratore D
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4957052
Subject(s) - dosimeter , medicine , radiography , nuclear medicine , lead apron , imaging phantom , iliac crest , thermoluminescent dosimeter , dose profile , dosimetry , radiology , surgery , radiation protection
Purpose: To correct in‐vivo metal‐oxide‐semiconductor field‐effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters dependence on X‐ray energy, dose and dose rate, and temperature in order to measure doses or exposures on several anatomic points of interest undergoing some routine radiographs. Methods: A mobile MOSFET system (BEST Medical) was carefully calibrated with X‐ray at kVp of 70, 80, 100, 120, and 138 kVp, phantom temperatures at 0, 21, and 43 oC, and exposure range from 0.01 to 10 R confirmed with Raysafe and RadCal dosimeters. The MOSFETS were placed on the midline bladder or uterus, left pelvic iliac artery, left abdominal above iliac crest, abdominal midline anterior at inferior margin of stomach, and left pectoral of a large and a small body‐size cadavers undergoing AP/PA chest and lumber spine radiographs using manual and automatic exposure control (AEC) with and without lead shielding. MOSTFETs and TLD chips were also placed on the stomach, sigmoid, pubic symphysis, left and right pelvic walls of another cadaver for AP pelvic manual or AEC radiography prior to and after a left hip metal implant. Results: Individual MOSFET detectors had various low‐dose limits in ranged from 0.03 to 0.08 R, nonlinear response to X‐ray energy, and significant temperature effect of 15%. By accumulating 10 manual exposures and 20 AEC exposures, we achieved dose measured accuracy of 6%. There were up to 8 fold increases for AEC exposure of spine and chest X‐ray procedure from no shielding to with shielding. For pelvic radiography, exposure to public symphysis was the highest even higher than that of the skin. After hip implant, AEC pelvic radiograph increase exposure by 30 to 200% consistent with results of TLDs. Conclusion: Dependence of energy, temperature and dose limit were accurately corrected. We have found significant exposure for those clinical pr°ocedures and the study provided evidences for developing new clinical procedures.