Advertisement

Investigation of single-shot beam quality measurements using state of the art solid-state dosimeters for routine quality assurance applications in mammography

      Highlights

      • Medical physicists should verify new dosimetry devices for the conditions during any physics tests.
      • The energy response of tested solid state dosimeters was excellent (25kVp-32kVp).
      • Tested solid state dosimeters are trustworthy for routine QA purposes (output-HVL).

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To assess if single shot acquisitions with solid-state dosimeters as well as Robson’s method could replace ionization chambers for tube output and HVL measurements, saving medical physicists time.

      Material and methods

      The energy responses of 4 solid-state dosimeters with automatic calculation of HVL were compared to ionization chamber measurements. Five anode/filter combinations were tested: Mo/Mo, Mo/Rh, Rh/Rh, W/Rh and W/Ag, from 24kVp to 35kVp. Tube output was measured free in air. HVL was measured using the solid-state dosimeters (single-shot acquisition), then manually with aluminum sheets and finally using the parametrization method of Robson.

      Results

      Deviations in tube output and HVL related to energy response in SSD were small in the 25–32 kVp range, and for tube output typically within 3%. Extrapolation using the Robson parametrization was within 5%, except for one device and for all W/Rh. Deviations of the HVL using the single shot approach were within 10% of the gold standard data. Larger deviations were found at the extreme tube voltages of 24kVp and 35kVp (maximum of 24%).

      Conclusion

      With the assumption that deviations in tube output of 5% and for HVL of 10% are acceptable, all tested solid state dosimeters met this criterion in the tube voltage range of 26kVp to 32kVp. Robson’s method worked well for the spectra for which the method was developed, making both alternative approaches trustworthy for routine quality assurance purposes.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. EC, COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down the basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directive 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom.

        • Caruana C.J.
        • Tsapaki V.
        • Damilakis J.
        • Brambilla M.
        • Martín G.M.
        • Dimov A.
        • et al.
        Phys Med. 2018; 48: 162-168
        • Dance D.R.
        • Christofides S.
        • Maidment A.D.A.
        • Mclean I.D.
        • Ng K.G.
        Diagnostic Radiology Physics.
        A Handbook for Teachers and Students. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna2014
        • Dance D.R.
        • Thilander A.K.
        • Sandborg M.
        • Skinner C.L.
        • Castellano I.A.
        • Carlsson G.A.
        Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
        The British Journal of Radiology. 2000; 73: 1056-1067
        • Shrestha
        • et al.
        Towards standardization of x-ray beam filters in DM and DBT Monte Carlo simulations and analytical modelling.
        Phys. Med. Biol. 2017; 62: 1969
        • Lewin J.M.
        • Isaacs P.K.
        • Vance V.
        • Larke F.J.
        Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility.
        Radiology. 2003; 229 (Epub 2003 Jul 29): 261-268
        • Hernandez A.M.
        • Seibert J.A.
        • Nosratieh A.
        • Boone J.M.
        Generation and analysis of clinically relevant breast imaging x-ray spectra.
        Med Phys. 2017; 44: 2148-2160
        • Dance D.R.
        Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose.
        Phys Med Biol. 1990; 35: 1211-1220
        • Dance D.R.
        • Skinner C.L.
        • Young K.C.
        • Beckett J.R.
        • Kotre C.J.
        Additional factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose using the UK mammography dosimetry protocol.
        Phys Med Biol. 2000; 45: 3225-3240
        • van Engen R.
        • Young K.
        • Bosmans H.
        • Thijssen M.
        European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening.
        Part B: Digital mammography. Luxembourg: European Commission. 2006;
      2. European Commission. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition supplement. Digital mammography update. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 2013. 138 p.

        • Wagner L.K.
        • Archer B.R.
        • Cerra F.
        On the measurement of half-value layer in film-screen mammography.
        Med Phys. 1990; 17: 989-997
        • Robson K.J.
        A parametric method for determining mammographic X-ray tube output and half value layer.
        Br J Radiol. 2001; 74: 335-340
      3. Witzani J, Bjerke H, Bochud F, Csete I, Denoziere M, de Vries W et al. Calibration of dosemeters used in mammography with different X ray qualities: EUROMET project no. 526. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004;108(1):33-45.

        • DeWerd L.A.
        • Micka J.A.
        • Laird R.W.
        • Pearson D.W.
        • O'Brien M.
        • Lamperti P.
        The effect of spectra on calibration and measurement with mammographic ionization chambers.
        Med Phys. 2002; 29: 2649-2654
        • Brateman L.F.
        • Heintz P.H.
        Solid-state dosimeters: a new approach for mammography measurements.
        Med Phys. 2015; 42: 542-557
      4. ISO/IEC 17025: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. 2005.

        • Csete I.
        • Toroi P.
        • Steuer A.
        • Hourdakis C.
        • Gabris F.
        • Jozela S.
        • et al.
        IAEA-SSDL bilateral comparisons for diagnostic level air kerma measurement standards.
        Phys Med. 2018; 47: 9-15
        • Salomon E.
        • Homolka P.
        • Csete I.
        • Toroi P.
        Performance of semiconductor dosimeters with a range of radiation qualities used for mammography: A calibration laboratory study.
        Med Phys. 2020; 47: 1372-1378
        • Bemelmans F.
        • Dedulle A.
        • Bosmans H.
        Dosimeter measurements.
        Mendeley Data. 2019; https://doi.org/10.17632/fk8ym6k4vg.2
        • Fartaria M.J.
        • Reis C.
        • Pereira J.
        • Pereira M.F.
        • Cardoso J.V.
        • Santos L.M.
        • et al.
        Assessment of the mean glandular dose using LiF:Mg, Ti, LiF:Mg, Cu, P, Li2B4O7: Mn and Li2B4O7: Cu TL detectors in mammography radiation fields.
        Phys Med Biol. 2016; 61: 6384-6399
        • Romei C.
        • Di Fulvio A.
        • Traino C.A.
        • Ciolini R.
        • d'Errico F.
        Characterization of a low-cost PIN photodiode for dosimetry in diagnostic radiology.
        Phys Med. 2015; 31: 112-116
        • Hourdakis C.J.
        • Boziari A.
        • Koumbouli E.
        The effect of a compression paddle on energy response, calibration and measurement with mammographic dosimeters using ionization chambers and solid-state detectors.
        Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54: 1047-1059