Calibration strategies for use of the nanoDot OSLD in CT applications. Issue 1 (13th November 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Scarboro, Sarah B.; Cody, Dianna; Stingo, Francesco C.; Alvarez, Paola; Followill, David; Court, Laurence; Zhang, Di; McNitt‐Gray, Michael; Kry, Stephen F.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 20:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 331
• Page End: 339
• Publication Date: 2018-11-13
• Subjects: calibration -- CT -- dosimetry -- OSLD; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12491
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Aluminum oxide based optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters (OSLD) have been recognized as a useful dosimeter for measuring CT dose, particularly for patient dose measurements. Despite the increasing use of this dosimeter, appropriate dosimeter calibration techniques have not been established in the literature; while the manufacturer offers a calibration procedure, it is known to have relatively large uncertainties. The purpose of this work was to evaluate two clinical approaches for calibrating these dosimeters for CT applications, and to determine the uncertainty associated with measurements using these techniques. Three unique calibration procedures were used to calculate dose for a range of CT conditions using a commercially available OSLD and reader. The three calibration procedures included calibration (a) using the vendor‐provided method, (b) relative to a 120 kVp CT spectrum in air, and (c) relative to a megavoltage beam (implemented with 60 Co). The dose measured using each of these approaches was compared to dose measured using a calibrated farmer‐type ion chamber. Finally, the uncertainty in the dose measured using each approach was determined. For the CT and megavoltage calibration methods, the dose measured using the OSLD nanoDot was within 5% of the dose measured using an ion chamber for a wide range of different CT scan parameters (80–140 kVp, and with measurements at a range of positions). When calibrated using the vendor‐recommended protocol, the OSLD measured doses were on average 15.5% lower than ion chamber doses. Two clinical calibration techniques have been evaluated and are presented in this work as alternatives to the vendor‐provided calibration approach. These techniques provide high precision for OSLD‐based measurements in a CT environment.