Organ Dose Measurement in Computed Tomography Using Thermoluminescence Dosimeter in Locally Developed Phantoms

Document Type : Original Paper


1 Department of Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy and Radiodiagnosis

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

3 Department of Radiology, Medical Physics Unit, Federal medical Centre, Asaba.

4 Department of Radiotion biology, radiotherapy, radiodiagnosis, Faculty of clinical sciences, University of Lagos.

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

6 Department of radiation biology, radiotherapy, radiodiagnosis, Faculty of clinical sciences, university of lagos, nigeria

7 Radiation Biology, Radiotherapy, Radiodiagnosis, and Radiography, Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Lagos State, Nigeria

8 Department of radiation biology, radiotherapy, radiodiagnosis, faculty of clinical sciences, university of lagos, nigeria


Introduction: Organ dose estimation using thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD) is known to be a standard, although many other methods, such as simulation software, optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters, and photodiodes are still in use. This study aimed at directly measuring mean organ doses to the selected organs in the head/neck, chest, and abdominal regions from four computed tomography (CT) units in Lagos, south-west of Nigeria.
Material and Methods: This study was conducted on locally constructed inhomogeneous phantoms to measure mean organ doses to the head/neck, chest, and abdominopelvic regions from CT units in the Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. Lithium fluoride doped with magnesium and titanium (LiF: Mg, Ti) TLD was used for the measurement. Statistical analysis was performed by IBM SPSS (version 20).
Results: Validation of the designed phantoms was below ± 20% kVp and mAs parameters among the CT units, which was statistically different with regard to the observed dose discrepancies. Generally, a one-way ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the investigated mean organ dose (P = 0.043). The comparison of the obtained results from this study with those of other studies revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the TLDs (P > 0.05). The maximum relative difference in the dose was < 200%.
Conclusion: The designed phantoms seemed to be useful for CT dose validation and could be used to validate simulation software in areas where readymade phantoms are not available.


Main Subjects

  1. References


    1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B. Volume 1; New York. 2008.
    2. International Commissioning on Radiological Protection and Measurement (ICRP). Managing patient dose in computed tomography. ICRP Publication 87. Annals of ICRP. 2000; 30: 1–86.
    3. Vilar-Palop J, Vilar J, Hernández-Aguado I, González-Álvarez I, Lumbreras B. Updated effective doses in radiology. Journal of Radiological Protection. 2016 Nov 28;36(4):975.
    4. Jones JG, Mills CN, Mogensen MA, Lee CI. Radiation dose from medical imaging: a primer for emergency physicians. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2012 May;13(2):202.
    5. De Mauri A, Brambilla M, Chiarinotti D, Matheoud R, Carriero A, De Leo M.. Estimated Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging in Hemodialysis Patients. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2011; 3: 571–8.
    6. Griglock TM, Sinclair L, Mench A, Cormack B, Bidari S, Rill L, et al. Determining organ doses from CT with direct measurement in postmortem subjects: Part 1-methodology and validation. Radiology. 2015; 277:463-70.
    7. Martin Caon, Giovanni Bibbo , John Pattison. A comparison of radiation dose measured in CT dosimetry phantoms with calculations using EGS4 and voxel-based computational models. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1997; 42:219.
    8. Martin J Butson, Rebecca Elferink, Tsang Cheung, Peter K N Yu, Michael Stokes, Kim You Quach , et al. Verification of lung dose in an anthropomorphic phantom calculated by the collapsed cone convolution method. Physics in Medicine & Biology .2000; 45 :143.
    9. Liu H, Gu J, Caracappa PF, Xu XG. Comparison of two types of adult phantoms in terms of organ doses from diagnostic CT procedures. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2010; 55:1441.
    10. Ohno T, Araki F, Onizuka R, Hioki K, Tomiyama Y, Yamashita Y.  New absorbed dose measurement with cylindrical water phantoms for multidetector CT. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 60:4517.
    11. Marshall NW, Faulkner K. Normalized organ dose data measured as a function of field size for abdominal examinations. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1993 Aug;38(8):1131.
    12. Dabin J, Mencarelli A, McMillan D, Romanyukha A, Struelens L, Lee C. Validation of calculation algorithms for organ doses in CT by measurements on a 5 year old paediatric phantom. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2016; 61: 4168.
    13. Robert J Staton, Choonik Lee, Choonsik Lee, Matt D Williams, David E Hintenlang. Organ and effective doses in newborn patients during helical multislice computed tomography examination. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2006; 51: 5151.
    14. Nowik P, Bujila R, Kull L, Andersson J, Poludniowski G.. The dosimetric impact of including the patient table in CT dose estimates. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2017; 62 :538.
    15. Winslow J, Hyer D, Fisher R, Tien C, Hintenlang D. Construction of anthropomorphic phantoms for use in dosimetry studies. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2009; 10: 195-203.
    16. Akpochafor MO, Aweda MA, Ibitoye ZA, Adeneye SO. Thermoluminescent dosimetry in clinical kilovoltage beams. Radiography, 2013; 19: 326-30.
    17. American College of Radiology (ACR). Computed tomography quality control manual. ACR publication. 2017; pp. 78-81.
    18. Ekpo ME, Obed RI, Omojola AD. Patient dose estimation using CT-Expo software at two hospital in North-Central Nigeria. Southern Clinics of Istanbul Eurasia. 2018; 29:125-31
    19. Cakmak E, 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: 132-42.
    20. Groves A, Owen E, Courtney M, Yates J, Goldstone E, Blake M. and Dixon K. 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. The British Journal of Radiology. 2004;77: 662–5.
    21. Nishizawa K, Maruyama T, Takayama M, Okada M, Hachiya J, Furuya Y.  Determination of organ doses and effective dose equivalents from computed tomographic examination. The British Journal of Radiology. 1991; 64: 20–8.
    22. Sinclair L, Griglock TM, Mench A, Lamoureux R, Cormack B, Bidari S, et al. Determining Organ Doses from CT with Direct Measurements in Postmortem Subjects: Part 2-Correlations with Patient-specific Parameters. Radiology. 2015; 277:471–6.
    23. Akpochafor M, Omojola A, Habeebu M, Ezike J, Adeneye S, Ekpo M, et al. Computed Tomography Organ Dose Determination Using ImPACT Simulation Software: Our findings in South-West Nigeria.  Eurasian Journal of Medicine and Oncology. 2018; 2(3):165-72.
    24. Ngaile JE, Msaki PK.. Estimation of Patient Organ Doses from CT Examinations in Tanzania. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2006; 7: 80-94.
    25. Poletti JL, Williamson BDP, Le Heron JC. Radiation dosimetry descriptors applied for four CT scanners in New Zealand. Australas Radiology. 1984; 41: 242-9.



Volume 16, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
March and April 2019
Pages 126-132
  • Receive Date: 19 May 2018
  • Revise Date: 30 August 2018
  • Accept Date: 05 September 2018
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2019