PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare computed tomography (CT) radiation dose measurement methods proposed by TG111, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and a direct dose profile integral (DPI) measurement method.

METHODS

Pencil and Farmer ion chambers are used for integrating dose profiles at different beam widths in a 60 cm long body phantom. Resulting DPI is used to calculate CT dose index (CTDI) at each beam width. Measurements are also done for a pencil chamber inserted into a 15 cm body phantom at the reference beam width. The reference measurement is scaled with pencil chamber measurements in air at different beam widths, according to the IEC approach. Finally, point dose measurements are done with a Farmer chamber under equilibrium conditions according to the TG111 method. All CTDIs calculated from measured data are compared to the scanner displayed CTDIs.

RESULTS

Calculated CTDIs, at different beam widths, using the IEC approach are within 20% of CTDIs calculated from DPI measurements in a 60 cm long body phantom. Dose Length Integral (DLI) obtained from TG111 method is close to the results obtained from DPI measurements. Scanner displayed CTDIs are lower than all measured values by up to 38% at the techniques used.

CONCLUSION

Although the IEC method is the easiest to use compared to the TG111 and direct DPI measurement method, it underestimates dose indices by about 20%. CTDIs displayed on the GE scanner are lower than those measured in this study by up to 38%.