Development of Computed Tomography Head and Body Phantom for Organ Dosimetry

Document Type : Original Paper

Authors

1 Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy and Radiodiagnosis

2 Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy, and Radiodiagnosis, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria

3 Department of Radiation Biology and Radiotherapy, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba.

4 FMC ASABA DELTA STATE

5 Department of Radiation Biology and Radiotherapy, College of Medicine, University of Lagos Idi-Araba.

6 Department of Radiation Biology and Radiotherapy, College of Medicine, University of Lagos.

7 Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy, Radiodiagnosis and Radiography, College of Medicine, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Idi-Araba, Lagos, Nigeria

8 Department of Physics, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria

Abstract

Introduction: Quality assurance in Computed tomography (CT) centers in developing countries are largely hindered by the unavailability of CT phantoms. The development of a local CT phantom for the measurement of organ radiation absorbed dose is therefore requisite.
Material and Methods: Local CT phantoms were designed to meet the standard criteria of 32 cm diameter for body, 16 cm diameter for head, and 14 cm in length respectively. The outer plastic shell was made using poly (methyl methacrylate [PMMA]) sheet. The developed CT phantoms were validated against a standard phantom. Radiation absorbed dose was determined by scanning the setup with the same protocol used for the standard phantom. The local phantoms were then verified for organ radiation absorbed dose measurement using bovine tissues. The set up was CT-scanned, and Hounsfield units (HU) for bovine tissues were obtained.
Results: There was no significant difference between the local and standard head phantoms (P=0.060). Similarly, no difference was noted between the local and standard body phantoms (P=0.795). The percentage difference in volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) between the body (local and standard) phantoms was higher than that for the head phantoms. There were no significant differences in HU between bovine and human brain, liver, kidney and lung tissues (P=0.938).
Conclusion: The local phantoms showed good agreement with the standard ones. The developed phantoms can be used for CT organ radiation absorbed dose measurement in radiology departments in Nigeria.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. References

     

    1. Bushberg JT, Siebert JA, Leidholdt SB, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging 2nd Ed. Lippincott W, W. NY. 2012.
    2. Rehani MM, Berry M. Radiation Doses in Computed Tomography: the Increasing doses of radiation need to be controlled. British Med Jour.2000; 320: 593–4.
    3. Aweda MA, Arogundade RA. Patient dose reduction methods in computerized tomography procedures: A review. Int Jour of Phy Scien.2007; 2:1-9
    4. Winslow J, Daniel E, Ryan F, Christopher J, David E. Construction of anthropomorphic phantoms for use in dosimetry studies. Jour of appl clinical med Phys. 2009; 10:3.
    5. International Atomic Energy Agency. Optimization of the radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Final report of a coordinated research project in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. IAEA-TECDOC. 2004;1423.
    6. Cakmak ED, Tuncel N, Sindir B. Assessment of organ dose by direct and indirect measurements for a wide bore x-ray computed tomography unit that used in radiotherapy. International Journal of Medical Physics, Clinical Engineering and Radiation Oncology. 2015; 4(02): 132.
    7. Kopp AF, Heuschmid M, Claussen CD. Multidetector helical CT of the liver for tumor detection and characterization. European radiology. 2002; 12(4): 745-52.
    8. Toth TL. Dose reduction opportunities for CT scanners. Pediatric radiology. 2002 Apr 1;32(4):261-7.
    9. Itoh S, Koyama S, Ikeda M. Further Reduction of Radiation Dose in Helical CT for Lung cancer Screening Using Small Tube Current and a Newly Designed Filter. J. Thorac. Imaging. 2001; 16:81–8.
    10. Naseri S, Momen Nezhad M, Hozhabri Z, Haghparast A, Karami G, Hejazi P. Optimization of Parameters in 16-slice CT-‌‌scan Protocols for Reduction of the Absorbed Dose. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2014; 11: 270-5.
    11. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Barnes GT, Gould RG, Seibert JA. Specification, acceptance testing and quality control of diagnostic x-ray imaging equipment. American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 1994.
    12. Dixon RL, Anderson JA, Bakalyar DM, Boedeker K, Boone J, Cody D. Comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of radiation dose in x-ray computed tomography. Report of AAPM Task Group. 2010; 111: 20740-3846.
    13. AAPM. Site specific dose estimates (SSDE) in paediatric and adult body CT examinations. AAPM Report No. 204. Report of AAPM Task Group 204 of AAPM. College Park, MD. 2011.
    14. Hasford F, Van Wyk B, Mabhengu T, Vangu MD, Kyere AK, Amuasi JH. Determination of dose delivery accuracy in CT examinations. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2015; 8(4): 489-92.
    15. Leitz W, Axelsson B, Szendrö G. Computed Tomography Dose Assessment - A practical approach to radiation protection dosimetry. Nuc. Tech. Pub. 1995; 57:377-80.
    16. Yu C , Luxton G. TLD dose measurement: A simplified accurate technique for the dose range from 0.5 cGy to 1000cGY. Med Phys. 1999; 26(6): 1010-6.
    17. Edward LN, Ajoy KD , Zheng FL. Influence of phantom diameter, kVp and scan mode upon computed tomography dose index. International. Journal of medical physics. Radiation protection physics.2003; 30: 395-402.
    18. Sinclair L, Griglock TM, Mench A, Lamoureux R, Cormack B, Bidari S. Determining organ doses from CT with direct measurements in postmortem subjects: part 2—correlations with patient-specific parameters. Radiology. 2015; 277(2): 471-6.
    19. Mahur M, Gurjar OP, Grover RK, Negi PS, Sharma R, Singh A. Evaluation of Effect of Different Computed Tomography Scanning Protocols on Hounsfield Unit and Its Impact on Dose Calculation by Treatment Planning System. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2017; 14(3): 149-54.
    20. Shrimpton P. Assessment of patient dose in CT: European guidelines for multislice computed tomography funded by the European Commission 2004: contract number FIGMCT2000-20078-CT-TIP. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: European Commission. 2004.
    21. Huda W, Ogden KM. Comparison of head and body organ doses in CT. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2007; 53(2): N9.
    22. Bagdare PB, Dubey S, Ghosh SK, Gurjar OP, Bhandari V, Gupta KL. A study on slab-wooden dust-slab phantom for the development of thorax phantom. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2018; 15(2): 71-7.
    23. Ernst M, Manser P, Dula K, Volken W, Stampanoni MF, Fix MK. TLD measurements and Monte Carlo calculations of head and neck organ and effective doses for cone beam computed tomography using 3D Accuitomo 170. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2017; 46(7): 20170047.
    24. Pi Y, Liu T, Xu XG. Development Of A Set Of Mesh-based And Age-dependent Chinese Phantoms And Application For Ct Dose Calculations. Radiation protection dosimetry. 2018; 179(4): 370-82. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncx296.
    25. Lamba R, McGahan JP, Corwin MT, Li CS, Tran T, Seibert JA. CT Hounsfield numbers of soft tissues on unenhanced abdominal CT scans: variability between two different manufacturers’ MDCT scanners. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014; 203(5): 1013-20.
    26. Nazarnejad M, Mahdavi SR, Asnaashari K, Sadeghi M, Nikoofar A. Developing a verification and training phantom for gynecological brachytherapy system. Iranian Journal of Medical Physics. 2012; 9(1): 33-40.
    27. Kamaruddin N, Rajion ZA, Yusof A, Aziz ME. Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. InAIP Conference Proceedings. 2016 ; 1791: 1.
    28. Razi T, Niknami M, Ghazani FA. Relationship between Hounsfield unit in CT scan and gray scale in CBCT. Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects. 2014; 8(2): 107.
Iranian Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 16, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
January and February 2019
Pages 8-14

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 24 April 2018
  • Revise Date: 11 May 2018
  • Accept Date: 12 May 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics