Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters
Purpose: To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical physics (Lancaster) 2013-06, Vol.40 (6), p.062102-n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 062102 |
| container_title | Medical physics (Lancaster) |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Giaddui, Tawfik Cui, Yunfeng Galvin, James Yu, Yan Xiao, Ying |
| description | Purpose:
To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during x-ray volume imager (XVI) (Version R4.5) and on board imager (OBI) (Version 1.5) CBCT imaging protocols using these two types of dosimeters.
Methods:
Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLD dose response curves were generated at different kV imaging settings used by XVI (software version R4.5) and OBI (software version 1.5) CBCT systems. The settings for the XVI system were: 100 kVp/F0 (no filter), 120 kVp/F0, and 120 kVp/F1 (Bowtie filter), and for the OBI system were: 100 kVp/full fan, 125 kVp/full fan, and 125 kVp/half fan. XRQA2 film was calibrated in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 11 cGy and scanned using reflection scanning mode with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. NanoDot OSLDs were calibrated on phantom to surface dose levels between 0 and 14 cGy and read using the inLightTM MicroStar reader. Both dosimeters were used to measure in field surface and internal doses in a male Alderson Rando Phantom.
Results:
Dose response curves of XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs at different XVI and OBI CBCT settings were reported. For XVI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in head region during fast head and neck scan and 4.99 cGy in the chest region during symmetry scan. On the other hand, the internal dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 3.17 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.05 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 2.41 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. For OBI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.19 cGy in head region during head scan and 4.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. However, the internal dose ranged between 0.47 cGy in the head region during head scan and 5.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.45 cGy in the head region during head scan and 3.59 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. Both Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs gave close estimation of dose (within uncertainties) in many cases. Though, discrepancies of up to 20%–30% were observed in some cases.
Conclu |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1118/1.4803466 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1357495017</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1357495017</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4216-f62f9036ac6572175e171f7222decb709d31446bd71741dc67146df1fee671e83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAURSMEokNhwQ8gS2wAKcXPcezJsgxQRioqoIK6szz2CzWK7RA7U82f8LmkkwGxKSvb8vHxfbpF8RToCQAsX8MJX9KKC3GvWDAuq5Iz2twvFpQ2vGSc1kfFo5R-UEpFVdOHxRGrJCwFpYvi1yr6Xg86uy0SGxMS3OpunM4xJLLBfIMYyNW3NdHBkos3a2JiwOlCe7K6JGmXMvpExuTCd3KmW3M9RO8Mufry-ZSR1nV-_zDoEN_GTGKfndEdSdn5sdMZLelG7wImg8HsEziPGYf0uHjQ6i7hk8N6XHx9_-5y9aE8vzhbr07PS8MZiLIVrG1oJbQRtWQgawQJrWSMWTQbSRtbAediYyVIDtYICVzYFlrEaYvL6rh4PnvjlEkl4zKa62nGgCYrxoABrehEvZipfog_R0xZeTdF7jodMI5JQVVL3tQU5IS-nFEzxJQGbFU_OK-HnQKqbutSoA51Teyzg3bceLR_yT_9TEA5Azeuw93dJvXx00H4auZvB9mX-N_f74S3cfhH3tu2-g1Hzbkk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1357495017</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Giaddui, Tawfik ; Cui, Yunfeng ; Galvin, James ; Yu, Yan ; Xiao, Ying</creator><creatorcontrib>Giaddui, Tawfik ; Cui, Yunfeng ; Galvin, James ; Yu, Yan ; Xiao, Ying</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose:
To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during x-ray volume imager (XVI) (Version R4.5) and on board imager (OBI) (Version 1.5) CBCT imaging protocols using these two types of dosimeters.
Methods:
Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLD dose response curves were generated at different kV imaging settings used by XVI (software version R4.5) and OBI (software version 1.5) CBCT systems. The settings for the XVI system were: 100 kVp/F0 (no filter), 120 kVp/F0, and 120 kVp/F1 (Bowtie filter), and for the OBI system were: 100 kVp/full fan, 125 kVp/full fan, and 125 kVp/half fan. XRQA2 film was calibrated in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 11 cGy and scanned using reflection scanning mode with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. NanoDot OSLDs were calibrated on phantom to surface dose levels between 0 and 14 cGy and read using the inLightTM MicroStar reader. Both dosimeters were used to measure in field surface and internal doses in a male Alderson Rando Phantom.
Results:
Dose response curves of XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs at different XVI and OBI CBCT settings were reported. For XVI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in head region during fast head and neck scan and 4.99 cGy in the chest region during symmetry scan. On the other hand, the internal dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 3.17 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.05 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 2.41 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. For OBI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.19 cGy in head region during head scan and 4.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. However, the internal dose ranged between 0.47 cGy in the head region during head scan and 5.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.45 cGy in the head region during head scan and 3.59 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. Both Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs gave close estimation of dose (within uncertainties) in many cases. Though, discrepancies of up to 20%–30% were observed in some cases.
Conclusions:
Dose response curves of Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs indicated that the dose responses of these two dosimeters were different even at the same photon energy when different filters were used. Uncertainty levels of both dosimetry systems were below 6% at doses above 1 cGy. Both dosimetry systems gave almost similar estimation of doses (within uncertainties) in many cases, with exceptions of some cases when the discrepancy was around 20%–30%. New versions of the CBCT systems (investigated in this study) resulted in lower imaging doses compared with doses reported on earlier versions in previous studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-2405</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2473-4209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1118/1.4803466</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23718600</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MPHYA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Association of Physicists in Medicine</publisher><subject>Anatomy ; Ancillary equipment ; Calibrating of instruments or apparatus ; calibration ; CBCT ; CHEST ; Computed tomography ; Computerised tomographs ; computerised tomography ; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ; Cone beam computed tomography ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - instrumentation ; digital filters ; Dose‐volume analysis ; dosimeters ; dosimetry ; Dosimetry/exposure assessment ; Effects of ionizing radiation on biological systems ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Film Dosimetry - instrumentation ; Gafchromic film ; HEAD ; image dose ; Lasers ; luminescence ; Medical imaging ; Medical X‐ray imaging ; nanoDot OSLD ; Nanodots ; Optically stimulated luminescence ; PHANTOMS ; Photons ; QUANTUM DOTS ; Radiation Dosage ; RADIATION DOSES ; RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE ; reflection ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Standards and calibration ; Surface measurements ; Testing or calibrating of apparatus or arrangements provided for in groups G01D1/00 to G01D15/00 ; THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS ; THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY ; Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation ; XVI/OBI</subject><ispartof>Medical physics (Lancaster), 2013-06, Vol.40 (6), p.062102-n/a</ispartof><rights>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><rights>2013 American Association of Physicists in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4216-f62f9036ac6572175e171f7222decb709d31446bd71741dc67146df1fee671e83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4216-f62f9036ac6572175e171f7222decb709d31446bd71741dc67146df1fee671e83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1118%2F1.4803466$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1118%2F1.4803466$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23718600$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/22121030$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Giaddui, Tawfik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Yunfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvin, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Ying</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters</title><title>Medical physics (Lancaster)</title><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose:
To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during x-ray volume imager (XVI) (Version R4.5) and on board imager (OBI) (Version 1.5) CBCT imaging protocols using these two types of dosimeters.
Methods:
Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLD dose response curves were generated at different kV imaging settings used by XVI (software version R4.5) and OBI (software version 1.5) CBCT systems. The settings for the XVI system were: 100 kVp/F0 (no filter), 120 kVp/F0, and 120 kVp/F1 (Bowtie filter), and for the OBI system were: 100 kVp/full fan, 125 kVp/full fan, and 125 kVp/half fan. XRQA2 film was calibrated in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 11 cGy and scanned using reflection scanning mode with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. NanoDot OSLDs were calibrated on phantom to surface dose levels between 0 and 14 cGy and read using the inLightTM MicroStar reader. Both dosimeters were used to measure in field surface and internal doses in a male Alderson Rando Phantom.
Results:
Dose response curves of XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs at different XVI and OBI CBCT settings were reported. For XVI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in head region during fast head and neck scan and 4.99 cGy in the chest region during symmetry scan. On the other hand, the internal dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 3.17 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.05 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 2.41 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. For OBI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.19 cGy in head region during head scan and 4.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. However, the internal dose ranged between 0.47 cGy in the head region during head scan and 5.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.45 cGy in the head region during head scan and 3.59 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. Both Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs gave close estimation of dose (within uncertainties) in many cases. Though, discrepancies of up to 20%–30% were observed in some cases.
Conclusions:
Dose response curves of Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs indicated that the dose responses of these two dosimeters were different even at the same photon energy when different filters were used. Uncertainty levels of both dosimetry systems were below 6% at doses above 1 cGy. Both dosimetry systems gave almost similar estimation of doses (within uncertainties) in many cases, with exceptions of some cases when the discrepancy was around 20%–30%. New versions of the CBCT systems (investigated in this study) resulted in lower imaging doses compared with doses reported on earlier versions in previous studies.</description><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Ancillary equipment</subject><subject>Calibrating of instruments or apparatus</subject><subject>calibration</subject><subject>CBCT</subject><subject>CHEST</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Computerised tomographs</subject><subject>computerised tomography</subject><subject>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</subject><subject>Cone beam computed tomography</subject><subject>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - instrumentation</subject><subject>digital filters</subject><subject>Dose‐volume analysis</subject><subject>dosimeters</subject><subject>dosimetry</subject><subject>Dosimetry/exposure assessment</subject><subject>Effects of ionizing radiation on biological systems</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis</subject><subject>Film Dosimetry - instrumentation</subject><subject>Gafchromic film</subject><subject>HEAD</subject><subject>image dose</subject><subject>Lasers</subject><subject>luminescence</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medical X‐ray imaging</subject><subject>nanoDot OSLD</subject><subject>Nanodots</subject><subject>Optically stimulated luminescence</subject><subject>PHANTOMS</subject><subject>Photons</subject><subject>QUANTUM DOTS</subject><subject>Radiation Dosage</subject><subject>RADIATION DOSES</subject><subject>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</subject><subject>reflection</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Standards and calibration</subject><subject>Surface measurements</subject><subject>Testing or calibrating of apparatus or arrangements provided for in groups G01D1/00 to G01D15/00</subject><subject>THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS</subject><subject>THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY</subject><subject>Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation</subject><subject>XVI/OBI</subject><issn>0094-2405</issn><issn>2473-4209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAURSMEokNhwQ8gS2wAKcXPcezJsgxQRioqoIK6szz2CzWK7RA7U82f8LmkkwGxKSvb8vHxfbpF8RToCQAsX8MJX9KKC3GvWDAuq5Iz2twvFpQ2vGSc1kfFo5R-UEpFVdOHxRGrJCwFpYvi1yr6Xg86uy0SGxMS3OpunM4xJLLBfIMYyNW3NdHBkos3a2JiwOlCe7K6JGmXMvpExuTCd3KmW3M9RO8Mufry-ZSR1nV-_zDoEN_GTGKfndEdSdn5sdMZLelG7wImg8HsEziPGYf0uHjQ6i7hk8N6XHx9_-5y9aE8vzhbr07PS8MZiLIVrG1oJbQRtWQgawQJrWSMWTQbSRtbAediYyVIDtYICVzYFlrEaYvL6rh4PnvjlEkl4zKa62nGgCYrxoABrehEvZipfog_R0xZeTdF7jodMI5JQVVL3tQU5IS-nFEzxJQGbFU_OK-HnQKqbutSoA51Teyzg3bceLR_yT_9TEA5Azeuw93dJvXx00H4auZvB9mX-N_f74S3cfhH3tu2-g1Hzbkk</recordid><startdate>201306</startdate><enddate>201306</enddate><creator>Giaddui, Tawfik</creator><creator>Cui, Yunfeng</creator><creator>Galvin, James</creator><creator>Yu, Yan</creator><creator>Xiao, Ying</creator><general>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201306</creationdate><title>Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters</title><author>Giaddui, Tawfik ; Cui, Yunfeng ; Galvin, James ; Yu, Yan ; Xiao, Ying</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4216-f62f9036ac6572175e171f7222decb709d31446bd71741dc67146df1fee671e83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Ancillary equipment</topic><topic>Calibrating of instruments or apparatus</topic><topic>calibration</topic><topic>CBCT</topic><topic>CHEST</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Computerised tomographs</topic><topic>computerised tomography</topic><topic>COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY</topic><topic>Cone beam computed tomography</topic><topic>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - instrumentation</topic><topic>digital filters</topic><topic>Dose‐volume analysis</topic><topic>dosimeters</topic><topic>dosimetry</topic><topic>Dosimetry/exposure assessment</topic><topic>Effects of ionizing radiation on biological systems</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis</topic><topic>Film Dosimetry - instrumentation</topic><topic>Gafchromic film</topic><topic>HEAD</topic><topic>image dose</topic><topic>Lasers</topic><topic>luminescence</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medical X‐ray imaging</topic><topic>nanoDot OSLD</topic><topic>Nanodots</topic><topic>Optically stimulated luminescence</topic><topic>PHANTOMS</topic><topic>Photons</topic><topic>QUANTUM DOTS</topic><topic>Radiation Dosage</topic><topic>RADIATION DOSES</topic><topic>RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE</topic><topic>reflection</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Standards and calibration</topic><topic>Surface measurements</topic><topic>Testing or calibrating of apparatus or arrangements provided for in groups G01D1/00 to G01D15/00</topic><topic>THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS</topic><topic>THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY</topic><topic>Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation</topic><topic>XVI/OBI</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Giaddui, Tawfik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Yunfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galvin, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiao, Ying</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Giaddui, Tawfik</au><au>Cui, Yunfeng</au><au>Galvin, James</au><au>Yu, Yan</au><au>Xiao, Ying</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters</atitle><jtitle>Medical physics (Lancaster)</jtitle><addtitle>Med Phys</addtitle><date>2013-06</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>062102</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>062102-n/a</pages><issn>0094-2405</issn><eissn>2473-4209</eissn><coden>MPHYA6</coden><abstract>Purpose:
To investigate the effect of energy (kVp) and filters (no filter, half Bowtie, and full Bowtie) on the dose response curves of the Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) in CBCT dose fields. To measure surface and internal doses received during x-ray volume imager (XVI) (Version R4.5) and on board imager (OBI) (Version 1.5) CBCT imaging protocols using these two types of dosimeters.
Methods:
Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLD dose response curves were generated at different kV imaging settings used by XVI (software version R4.5) and OBI (software version 1.5) CBCT systems. The settings for the XVI system were: 100 kVp/F0 (no filter), 120 kVp/F0, and 120 kVp/F1 (Bowtie filter), and for the OBI system were: 100 kVp/full fan, 125 kVp/full fan, and 125 kVp/half fan. XRQA2 film was calibrated in air to air kerma levels between 0 and 11 cGy and scanned using reflection scanning mode with the Epson Expression 10000 XL flat-bed document scanner. NanoDot OSLDs were calibrated on phantom to surface dose levels between 0 and 14 cGy and read using the inLightTM MicroStar reader. Both dosimeters were used to measure in field surface and internal doses in a male Alderson Rando Phantom.
Results:
Dose response curves of XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs at different XVI and OBI CBCT settings were reported. For XVI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in head region during fast head and neck scan and 4.99 cGy in the chest region during symmetry scan. On the other hand, the internal dose ranged between 0.02 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 3.17 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.05 cGy in the head region during fast head and neck scan and 2.41 cGy in the chest region during chest M20 scan. For OBI system, the surface dose ranged between 0.19 cGy in head region during head scan and 4.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. However, the internal dose ranged between 0.47 cGy in the head region during head scan and 5.55 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. The average (internal and external) dose ranged between 0.45 cGy in the head region during head scan and 3.59 cGy in the pelvis region during spot light scan. Both Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs gave close estimation of dose (within uncertainties) in many cases. Though, discrepancies of up to 20%–30% were observed in some cases.
Conclusions:
Dose response curves of Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot OSLDs indicated that the dose responses of these two dosimeters were different even at the same photon energy when different filters were used. Uncertainty levels of both dosimetry systems were below 6% at doses above 1 cGy. Both dosimetry systems gave almost similar estimation of doses (within uncertainties) in many cases, with exceptions of some cases when the discrepancy was around 20%–30%. New versions of the CBCT systems (investigated in this study) resulted in lower imaging doses compared with doses reported on earlier versions in previous studies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association of Physicists in Medicine</pub><pmid>23718600</pmid><doi>10.1118/1.4803466</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0094-2405 |
| ispartof | Medical physics (Lancaster), 2013-06, Vol.40 (6), p.062102-n/a |
| issn | 0094-2405 2473-4209 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1357495017 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Anatomy Ancillary equipment Calibrating of instruments or apparatus calibration CBCT CHEST Computed tomography Computerised tomographs computerised tomography COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY Cone beam computed tomography Cone-Beam Computed Tomography - instrumentation digital filters Dose‐volume analysis dosimeters dosimetry Dosimetry/exposure assessment Effects of ionizing radiation on biological systems Equipment Design Equipment Failure Analysis Film Dosimetry - instrumentation Gafchromic film HEAD image dose Lasers luminescence Medical imaging Medical X‐ray imaging nanoDot OSLD Nanodots Optically stimulated luminescence PHANTOMS Photons QUANTUM DOTS Radiation Dosage RADIATION DOSES RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE reflection Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Standards and calibration Surface measurements Testing or calibrating of apparatus or arrangements provided for in groups G01D1/00 to G01D15/00 THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSEMETERS THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY Thermoluminescent Dosimetry - instrumentation XVI/OBI |
| title | Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T19%3A48%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20dose%20evaluations%20between%20XVI%20and%20OBI%20cone%20beam%20CT%20systems%20using%20Gafchromic%20XRQA2%20film%20and%20nanoDot%20optical%20stimulated%20luminescence%20dosimeters&rft.jtitle=Medical%20physics%20(Lancaster)&rft.au=Giaddui,%20Tawfik&rft.date=2013-06&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=062102&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=062102-n/a&rft.issn=0094-2405&rft.eissn=2473-4209&rft.coden=MPHYA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1118/1.4803466&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1357495017%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1357495017&rft_id=info:pmid/23718600&rfr_iscdi=true |