A patient dosimetry system using MOSFET technology (Thomson and Neilson Electronics Ltd, Canada) is evaluated for entrance surface dose measurements in diagnostic radiology. The system sensitivity for the standard MOSFET detector coupled to a high sensitivity bias supply was measured to be 1 mV mGy-1. Response of a new high sensitivity dosemeter was measured to be 3 mV mGy-1. The minimum detectable entrance surface dose at which a single measurement can be made with less than 25% total uncertainty at the 95% confidence level was estimated to be 4 mGy for the standard dosemeter and 1.5 mGy for the new high sensitivity dosemeter. The dosemeters were found to be linear with absorbed dose in air, linear with dose rate and reproducible, although they showed some energy dependence across the diagnostic energy range. The system is also compared with thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) as a tool for the measurement of entrance surface dose in diagnostic radiology. MOSFET detectors are considered to have advantages over TLD dosemeters with the instant readout of entrance surface dose. These dosemeters do have the disadvantage that they are visible in radiographs, they have a finite shelf life and can only accumulate absorbed dose up to a limiting value after which the dosemeters can no longer be used.

For targeted radionuclide therapy, the level of activity to be administered is often determined from whole-body dosimetry performed on a pre-therapy tracer study. The largest potential source of error in this method is due to inconsistent or inaccurate activity retention measurements. The main aim of this study was to develop a simple method to quantify the uncertainty in the absorbed dose due to these inaccuracies. A secondary aim was to assess the effect of error propagation from the results of the tracer study to predictive absorbed dose estimates for the therapy as a result of using different radionuclides for each. Standard error analysis was applied to the MIRD schema for absorbed dose calculations. An equation was derived to describe the uncertainty in the absorbed dose estimate due solely to random errors in activity-time data, requiring only these data as input. Two illustrative examples are given. It is also shown that any errors present in the dosimetry calculations following the tracer study will propagate to errors in predictions made for the therapy study according to the ratio of the respective effective half-lives. If the therapy isotope has a much longer physical half-life than the tracer isotope (as is the case, for example, when using 123I as a tracer for 131I therapy) the propagation of errors can be significant. The equations derived provide a simple means to estimate two potentially large sources of error in whole-body absorbed dose calculations.

To determine the optimal collimation, pitch and reconstruction interval for CT colonography, 10 spherical polyps between 1 mm and 10 mm diameter and made of tissue equivalent material with a CT number of 40 Hounsfield units (HU) were placed in the colon of an anthropomorphic phantom. The phantom was scanned at slice thicknesses of 3 mm, 5 mm and 7 mm and pitches of 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 and 2.0 on an IGE Hispeed advantage system. Images were reconstructed for each scanning parameter at the minimum intervals allowed along the z-axis. The optimum scanning protocol was assessed by measuring maximum contrast between the polyp and air, sensitivity for detection of each polyp along the z-axis, and relative radiation dose. In addition, images were reviewed separately by two radiologists who graded polyp conspicuity as: 0, not seen; 1, faintly seen; 2, well seen. It was found that varying the scanning parameters caused a marked alteration in the maximum contrast between each polyp and air. For example, for the 5 mm polyp, the range of contrasts from best to worst case was 910-490 HU. It was noted that with contrasts of less than 500 HU, polyps were only faintly seen. A slice thickness of 3 mm with a pitch of 2 offers optimal polyp conspicuity with a relatively low radiation dose, we conclude that scanning parameters can be optimized for threshold contrast, radiation dose and subjective conspicuity. We propose an optimal parameter of 3 mm slice thickness and pitch 2.

No abstract

National guidance from the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM Report 91) currently recommends that the patient dose for a panoral X-ray unit is measured as dose area product (DAP) replacing dose width product described in earlier guidance. An investigation identifying different methods available to carry out this measurement has been undertaken and errors in the methodologies analysed. It has been shown that there may be up to a 30 % variation in DAP measurement between methods. This paper recommends that where possible a DAP meter is used to measure the dose-area product from a panoral X-ray unit to give a direct DAP measurement. However, by using a solid-state dose measurement and film/ruler to calculate DAP the authors have established a conversion factor of 1.4. It is strongly recommended that wherever a DAP value is quoted the methodology used to obtain that value is also reported.