Radiation Dosimetry
Modeling the correlations between radiation dose and scanning parameters of XVI cone beam CT
Zhengxian Li, Jingjing Zhao, Meijiao Wang, Li Zhou, Dong Liu, Bosheng Wang, Shaofei Zong, Jingchao Ma, Yibao Zhang
Published 2017-08-25
Cite as Chin J Radiol Med Prot, 2017, 37(8): 618-622. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-5098.2017.08.012
Abstract
ObjectiveTo quantify the correlations between Elekta XVI cone beam CT dose and various scanning protocols, providing mathematical models to assess the protocol-dependency of imaging dose during image guided radiotherapy.
MethodsBased on standard protocols and various combinations of kVp and mA on an XVI mounted on an Elekta Versa HD accelerator, the air KERMA was measured at various positions in a standard PTW CTDI body phantom using calibrated PTW 30009 kV chamber and UNIDOS webline electrometer. Weighted CT dose index (CTDIw) was computed thereafter. SigmaPlot 10.0 was used to fit the measurements against mA and/or kVp yielding empirical functions.
ResultsUnder standard protocols, the CTDIw of Varian OBI was only 11.23% (chest) and 9.15% (pelvis) of Elekta XVI. Using the default and other 4 investigated kVp values, the central and peripheral KERMA were both proportional to mA, and yet the slope value a varied dramatically from 0.479 to 6.679. Major affecting factors included kVp settings, measurement locations, and dosimetric metrics, etc. None linear regressions were used to fit kVp against KERMA at various locations and CTDIw (R2>0.997). The differences between all coefficients were statistically significant (P<0.05). The impact of changing both mA and kVp on the dose to phantom center can be described as mGy=(5.917 -0.197 ×kVp+ 0.002 ×kVp2-5.063 ×10-6×kVp3)×mA.
ConclusionsImaging dose of Elekta XVI is strongly dependent on scanning parameters. The proposed mathematical models can be used as efficient and robust indicators of such dependency.
Key words:
Cone beam CT; Elekta XVI; Radiation dose; Radiological protection; Image guided radiotherapy
Contributor Information
Zhengxian Li
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gongzhuling Guowen Hospital, Gongzhuling 136100, China
Jingjing Zhao
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gongzhuling Guowen Hospital, Gongzhuling 136100, China
Meijiao Wang
Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital &
Institute, Beijing 100142, China
Li Zhou
Division of Radiation Physics, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
Dong Liu
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gongzhuling Guowen Hospital, Gongzhuling 136100, China
Bosheng Wang
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gongzhuling Guowen Hospital, Gongzhuling 136100, China
Shaofei Zong
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gongzhuling Guowen Hospital, Gongzhuling 136100, China
Jingchao Ma
Department of Radiation Oncology, Gongzhuling Guowen Hospital, Gongzhuling 136100, China
Yibao Zhang
Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education/Beijing), Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Cancer Hospital &
Institute, Beijing 100142, China