SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: St...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical physics (Lancaster) 2016-06, Vol.43 (6), p.3640-3640
Hauptverfasser: Al-Senan, R, Demirkaya, O
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3640
container_issue 6
container_start_page 3640
container_title Medical physics (Lancaster)
container_volume 43
creator Al-Senan, R
Demirkaya, O
description Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o’clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV’s, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI’s from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV’s. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); and was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r > 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.
doi_str_mv 10.1118/1.4956944
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_4956944</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>MP6944</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1354-156927597e981147b392ba9f37218c84386332a322033c51ffc2fc6159b8d2903</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90F1LQjEYB_ARBZl10TcYdFUwe_ZyXtZdncokJSHtdsy5g0d0k20ifvuO6G1d7WHPj__GH6FbCj1KaflIe0JmuRTiDHWYKDgRDOQ56gBIQZiA7BJdxbgEgJxn0EHme0r6hEFOgD_havI6wGMb8OcP1gmPF9olv8aVdam91G5-WDabhQ37Fvv1RocmeodfbNpZ6_BIL31oU9rBbWtt0jbYEK_RRa1X0d6czi6avr9Nqg8y_OoPquchMZRngtD236zIZGFlSakoZlyymZY1LxgtTSl4mXPONGcMODcZrWvDapPTTM7KOZPAu-jumOtjalQ0TbJmYbxz1iTFWC4kh7JV90dlgo8x2FptQrPWYa8oqEOHiqpTh60lR7trVnb_N1Sj8ck_HP3hcZ0a7_4J_wWrNHmG</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Al-Senan, R ; Demirkaya, O</creator><creatorcontrib>Al-Senan, R ; Demirkaya, O</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o’clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV’s, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI’s from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV’s. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); and was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r &gt; 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.4956944</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ; Anatomy ; Collimation ; Computed tomography ; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ; Curve fitting ; Dosimetry ; Germanium ; IMAGE PROCESSING ; Image scanners ; MANUFACTURERS ; PHANTOMS ; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ; SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2016-06, Vol.43 (6), p.3640-3640</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.4956944$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22649308$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Al-Senan, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirkaya, O</creatorcontrib><title>SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><description>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o’clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV’s, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI’s from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV’s. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); and was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r &gt; 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.</description><subject>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES</subject><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Collimation</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</subject><subject>Curve fitting</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Germanium</subject><subject>IMAGE PROCESSING</subject><subject>Image scanners</subject><subject>MANUFACTURERS</subject><subject>PHANTOMS</subject><subject>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90F1LQjEYB_ARBZl10TcYdFUwe_ZyXtZdncokJSHtdsy5g0d0k20ifvuO6G1d7WHPj__GH6FbCj1KaflIe0JmuRTiDHWYKDgRDOQ56gBIQZiA7BJdxbgEgJxn0EHme0r6hEFOgD_havI6wGMb8OcP1gmPF9olv8aVdam91G5-WDabhQ37Fvv1RocmeodfbNpZ6_BIL31oU9rBbWtt0jbYEK_RRa1X0d6czi6avr9Nqg8y_OoPquchMZRngtD236zIZGFlSakoZlyymZY1LxgtTSl4mXPONGcMODcZrWvDapPTTM7KOZPAu-jumOtjalQ0TbJmYbxz1iTFWC4kh7JV90dlgo8x2FptQrPWYa8oqEOHiqpTh60lR7trVnb_N1Sj8ck_HP3hcZ0a7_4J_wWrNHmG</recordid><startdate>201606</startdate><enddate>201606</enddate><creator>Al-Senan, R</creator><creator>Demirkaya, O</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201606</creationdate><title>SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers</title><author>Al-Senan, R ; Demirkaya, O</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1354-156927597e981147b392ba9f37218c84386332a322033c51ffc2fc6159b8d2903</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES</topic><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Collimation</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</topic><topic>Curve fitting</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Germanium</topic><topic>IMAGE PROCESSING</topic><topic>Image scanners</topic><topic>MANUFACTURERS</topic><topic>PHANTOMS</topic><topic>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Al-Senan, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demirkaya, O</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Al-Senan, R</au><au>Demirkaya, O</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><date>2016-06</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>3640</spage><epage>3640</epage><pages>3640-3640</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>Purpose: The purpose of this study was to: 1) compare scanners output by measuring normalized CTDIw (mGy/100mAs) in different CT makes and models and at different kV’s, and 2) quantify the relationship between kV and CTDI and compare this relationship between the different manufacturers. Methods: Study included forty scanners of major CT manufacturers and of various models. Exposure was measured at center and 12 o’clock holes of head and body CTDI phantoms, at all available kV’s, and with the largest or second largest available collimation in each scanner. Average measured CTDI’s from each CT manufacturer were also plotted against kV and the fitting equation: CTDIw (normalized) = a.kVb was calculated. The power (b) value may be considered as an indicator of spectral filtration, which affects the degree of beam hardening. Also, HVLs were measured at several scanners. Results: Results showed GE scanners, on average, had higher normalized CTDIw than those of Siemens and Philips, in both phantom sizes and at all kV’s. ANOVA statistic indicated the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.05). Comparison between Philips and Siemens, however, was not statistically significant. Curve fitting showed b values ranged from 2.4 to 2.9 (for Head periphery and center, respectively); and was about 2.8 for Body phantom periphery, and 3.2 at the center of Body phantom. Fitting equations (kV vs. CTDI) will be presented and discussed. GE’s CTDIw vs. HVL showed very strong correlation (r &gt; 0.99). Conclusion: Partial characterization of scanners output was performed which may be helpful in dose estimation to internal organs. The relatively higher output from GE scanners may be attributed to lower filtration. Work is still in progress to obtain CTDI values from other scanners as well as to measure their HVLs.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><doi>10.1118/1.4956944</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0094-2405
ispartof Medical physics (Lancaster), 2016-06, Vol.43 (6), p.3640-3640
issn 0094-2405
2473-4209
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1118_1_4956944
source Access via Wiley Online Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES
Anatomy
Collimation
Computed tomography
COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY
Curve fitting
Dosimetry
Germanium
IMAGE PROCESSING
Image scanners
MANUFACTURERS
PHANTOMS
RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS
title SU-G-206-03: CTDI Per KV at Phantom Center and Periphery: Comparison Between Major CT Manufacturers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T21%3A54%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SU-G-206-03:%20CTDI%20Per%20KV%20at%20Phantom%20Center%20and%20Periphery:%20Comparison%20Between%20Major%20CT%20Manufacturers&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Al-Senan,%20R&rft.date=2016-06&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=3640&rft.epage=3640&rft.pages=3640-3640&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.4956944&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3EMP6944%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true