skip to main content

Development of in-house phantoms from polyester resin and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide materials with various diameters:Investigation their CT numbers for various tube voltages and field of views

Luthfi Nurrahma Shofiana  -  Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia
*Choirul Anam orcid scopus  -  Department of Physics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia
Heri Sutanto  -  Department of Physics, Diponegoro University, Tembalang, Semarang, Indonesia
Rin Hafsatul Asiah  -  Department of Physics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia
Riski Nihayati  -  Department of Physics, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia
Ansory Khaerul  -  Department of Radiology, Koja Hospital, North Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia
Geoff Dougherty  -  Department of Applied Physics and Medical Imaging, California State University Channel Islands, Camarillo, CA 93012, United States

Citation Format:
Abstract
Development phantoms with various sizes reflecting the variation among patients to investigate the accuracy size-specific dose estimate (SSDE)is essential. The aim of this work was to develop in-house phantoms from polyester resin (PR) and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP) for various diameters and investigate the CT numbers of the phantoms with various tube voltages and reconstructed field of views (FOV). In-house phantoms with diameters of 8, 16, 24, and 32 cm were developed. The phantoms were made from the PR and MEKP materials. The composition of MEKP was 0.3 wt% and PR was 99.7%. The phantoms were scanned with a Siemens SOMATOM Emotion 6 CT scanner with various tube voltage (i.e. 80, 110, and 130 kVp), and various field of views (FOVs) (i.e. 35, 40, 45, 50 cm). CT numbersof the phantoms for various diameters, tube voltages and FOVs were investigated. It was found that the CT number was in range of 86 HU to 147 HU. The CT number increased with the increases of diameter and tube voltage. However, the CT number was independent with the FOV. The in-house phantom based on PR andMEKP with various diameters from 8 cm to 32 cm have been successfully developed. The CT numbers of the phantoms depend on diameter and tube voltage,but do not depend with the FOV.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: CT phantom, alternative phantom; polyester resin; CT number; SSDE
Funding: Diponegoro University

Article Metrics:

  1. A. T. Davis, A. L. Palmer, and A. Nisbet, “Can CT scan protocols used for radiotherapy treatment planning be adjusted to optimize image quality and patient dose? A systematic review,” Br. J. Radiol., 90, 20160406, (2017). C. Anam, W. S. Budi, K. Adi, H. Sutanto, F. Haryanto, M. H. Ali, T. Fujibuchi,and G. Dougherty,“Assesment of patient dose and noise level of clinical CT images: automated measurement,”J.Radiol. Prot.39, 783-93 (2019)
  2. E. Seeram, “Computed Tomography: Physical Priciple, Clinical Application, and Quality Control,” 4th ed. Australia: Elsevier, (2009)
  3. C. J. Martin, “Management of patient dose in radiology in the UK,” Rad. Prot. Dosim., 147, 355-372, (2011)
  4. G. Le Coultre, J. Bize, M. Champendal, D. Wittwer, N. Ryckx, A. Aroua, P. Trueb, and R. F. Verdun, “Exposure of the Swiss population by radiodiagnostics: 2013 review,” Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 169, 221-224, (2016)
  5. R. A. Parry, S. A. Glaze, and B. R. Archer, “The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Resident. Typical patient radiation doses in diagnostic radiology” RadioGraphics., 19, 1289-1302, (1999)
  6. C. Levi, J. E. Gray, E. X. McCullough, and R. R. Hattery, “The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values,” Am. J. Radiol., 139, 443–447, (1982)
  7. C. Anam, T. Fujibuchi, F. Haryanto, R. Widita, I. Arif, and G. Dougherty, “An evaluation of computed tomography dose index measurements using a pencil ionisation chamber and small detectors,” J. Radiol. Prot., 39, 112–124, (2019)
  8. S. Mubarok, L. E. Lubis,and S. A. Pawiro, “Parameter-based estimation of CT dose index and image quality using an in-house AndroidTM-based software,” J. Phys: Conf. Ser., 694, 012037, (2016)
  9. C. H. McCollough, S. Leng, L. Yu, D. D. Cody, J. M. Boone, and M. F. McNitt Gray, “CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing,” Radiology, 259, 311-316, (2011)
  10. C. Anam, F. Haryanto, R. Widita, I. Arif and G. Dougherty, “Automated calculation of water-equivalent diameter (Dw) based on AAPM task group 220,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., 17, 320-333, (2016)
  11. C. Anam, F. R. Mahdani, W. K. Dewi, H. Sutanto, P. Triadyaksa, F. Haryanto, and G. Dougherty, “An improved method for automated calculation of the water-equivalent diameter for estimating size-specific dose in CT,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., 22, 313–323, (2021)
  12. C. Anam, D. Adhianto, H. Sutanto, K. Adi, M. H. Ali, W. I. D. Rae, T. Fujibuchi, and G. Dougherty, “Comparison of central, peripheral, and weighted size-specific dose in CT,” J. Xray. Sci. Technol., 28, 695-708, (2020)
  13. M. Nasir, D.Pratama, C. Anam, and F. Haryanto, “Calculation of size specific dose estimates (SSDE) value at cylindrical phantom from CBCT Varian OBI v1.4 X-ray tube EGSnrc Monte Carlo simulation based,” J. Phys. : Conf. Ser., 694, 012040, (2016)
  14. H. R. Choi, R. E. Kim, C. W. Heo, C. W. Kim, M. S. Yoo, and Y. Lee, “Optimization of dose and image quality using self-produced phantom with various diameters in pediatric abdominal CT scan,” Optik., 168, 54-60, (2018)
  15. D. Adhianto, C. Anam, H. Sutanto, and M. H. Ali, “Effect of Phantom Size and Tube Voltage on the size-conversion factor for patient dose estimation in computed tomography examinations,” Iran. J. Med. Phys., 17,282-288, (2020)
  16. S. Sookpeng, P. Cheebsumon, T. Pengpan, and C. Martin, “Comparison of computed tomography dose index in polymethyl methacrylate and nylon dosimetry phantoms,” J. Med. Phys., 41, 45-51, (2016)
  17. R. Hilmawati, H. Sutanto, C. Anam, Z. Arifin, R. H. Asiah, and J. W. Soedarsono, “Development of a head CT dose index (CTDI) phantom based on polyester resin and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide (MEKP): a preliminary study,” J. Radiol. Prot., 40, 544-553, (2020)
  18. R. H. Asiah, H. Sutanto, C. Anam, Z. Arifin, Bahrudin, and R. Hilmawati, “Development of In-house head computed tomography dose index phantom based on polyester-resin materials,” Iran. J. Med. Phys., 18, 255-262, (2021)
  19. W. J. Meredith and J. B. Massey, “Fundamental Physics of Radiology,” Butterworth-Heinemann, (2013)
  20. K. Strzelec, “Studies on the properties of epoxy resins cured with polythiourethanes,” I. J. Adhesion and Adhesives., 27, 92-101, (2007)
  21. E. A. Zerhouni, J. F. Spivey, R. H. Morgan, F. P. Leo, F. P. Stitik, and S. S. Siegelman, “Factors influencing quantitative CT measurements of solitary pulmonary nodules,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr., 6, 1075–1087, (1982)
  22. T. B. Hunter, G. D. Pond, and O. Medina, “Dependence of substance CT number on scanning technique and position within scanner,” Comput. Radiol. 7, 199–203, (1983)
  23. J. T. Bushberg, J. A. Seibert, E. M. Leidholdt, and J. M. Boone, “The essential physics of medical imaging,” 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, (2012)
  24. T.He, X. Qian, R. Zhai, and Z. Yang, “Computed tomography number measurement consistency under different beam hardening conditions: Comparison between dual-energy spectral computed tomography and conventional computed tomography imaging in phantom experiment,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr., 39, 981–985, (2015)
  25. R. J. Cropp, P. Seslija, D. Tso, and Y. Thakur, “Scanner and kVp dependence of measured CT numbers in the ACR CT phantom,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., 14, 338-349, (2013)
  26. I. Suyudi, C. Anam, H. Sutanto, P. Triadyaksa, and T. Fujibuchi,“Comparisons of Hounsfield unit linearity between images reconstructed using an adaptive iterative dose reduction (AIDR) and a filter back-projection (FBP) techniques,” J. Biomed. Phys. Eng., 10, 215-224, (2020)

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.