Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26233218›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2015

Practical dose point-based methods to characterize dose distribution in a stationary elliptical body phantom for a cone-beam C-arm CT system.

Jang-Hwan Choi, Dragos Constantin, Arundhuti Ganguly, Erin Girard, Richard L Morin, Robert L Dixon, Rebecca Fahrig

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Jang-Hwan ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 and Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
Dragos ConstantinMicrowave Physics R&E, Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, California 94304.
Arundhuti GangulyDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
Erin GirardDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.
Richard L MorinMayo Clinic Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida 32224.
Robert L DixonDepartment of Radiology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27157.
Rebecca FahrigDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305.

Funding

Weight-Bearing Imaging of the Knee Using C-Arm CTR01AR065248 · NIAMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GOLD, GARRY E · 2015 to 2018
$2.0M
C-Arm CT for Guidence of Cardiac InterventionsR01HL087917 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI FAHRIG, REBECCA · 2009 to 2010
$1.5M
Axiom zeego shared instrument grantS10RR026714 · NCRR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI FAHRIG, REBECCA · 2010 to 2010
$500k
NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR026714NHLBI NIH HHS 1 R01HL087917NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL087917NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR065248
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo propose new dose point measurement-based metrics to characterize the dose distributions and the mean dose from a single partial rotation of an automatic exposure control-enabled, C-arm-based, wide cone angle computed tomography system over a stationary, large, body-shaped phantom.

methodsA small 0.6 cm(3) ion chamber (IC) was used to measure the radiation dose in an elliptical body-shaped phantom made of tissue-equivalent material. The IC was placed at 23 well-distributed holes in the central and peripheral regions of the phantom and dose was recorded for six acquisition protocols with different combinations of minimum kVp (109 and 125 kVp) and z-collimator aperture (full: 22.2 cm; medium: 14.0 cm; small: 8.4 cm). Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were carried out to generate complete 2D dose distributions in the central plane (z = 0). The MC model was validated at the 23 dose points against IC experimental data. The planar dose distributions were then estimated using subsets of the point dose measurements using two proposed methods: (1) the proximity-based weighting method (method 1) and (2) the dose point surface fitting method (method 2). Twenty-eight different dose point distributions with six different point number cases (4, 5, 6, 7, 14, and 23 dose points) were evaluated to determine the optimal number of dose points and their placement in the phantom. The performances of the methods were determined by comparing their results with those of the validated MC simulations. The performances of the methods in the presence of measurement uncertainties were evaluated.

resultsThe 5-, 6-, and 7-point cases had differences below 2%, ranging from 1.0% to 1.7% for both methods, which is a performance comparable to that of the methods with a relatively large number of points, i.e., the 14- and 23-point cases. However, with the 4-point case, the performances of the two methods decreased sharply. Among the 4-, 5-, 6-, and 7-point cases, the 7-point case (1.0% [±0.6%] difference) and the 6-point case (0.7% [±0.6%] difference) performed best for method 1 and method 2, respectively. Moreover, method 2 demonstrated high-fidelity surface reconstruction with as few as 5 points, showing pixelwise absolute differences of 3.80 mGy (±0.32 mGy). Although the performance was shown to be sensitive to the phantom displacement from the isocenter, the performance changed by less than 2% for shifts up to 2 cm in the x- and y-axes in the central phantom plane.

conclusionsWith as few as five points, method 1 and method 2 were able to compute the mean dose with reasonable accuracy, demonstrating differences of 1.7% (±1.2%) and 1.3% (±1.0%), respectively. A larger number of points do not necessarily guarantee better performance of the methods; optimal choice of point placement is necessary. The performance of the methods is sensitive to the alignment of the center of the body phantom relative to the isocenter. In body applications where dose distributions are important, method 2 is a better choice than method 1, as it reconstructs the dose surface with high fidelity, using as few as five points.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingComputer SimulationCone-Beam Computed TomographyHumansModels, BiologicalMonte Carlo MethodRadiometryUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID26233218
PMCPMC4522014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.