Abstract
This study involved the development of an objective method to compare the performance of five CT scanners for the purpose of benchmarking. The method used to assess the scanners was to determine the dose-normalised noise at a spatial resolution of 5.5 cm−1. This gave a dose-normalised percent noise between 0.37% and 0.76%. The scanners were also assessed for radiation dose to patients undergoing abdomen and head CT examinations. Patients’ dose-length product (DLP) for the abdomen clinical examinations varied from 305 to 685 mGy.cm, and for the head clinical examinations from 333 to 900 mGy.cm. The study results demonstrated that the comparison of dose and spatial resolution normalised percent noise levels is a useful method of comparing CT scanner performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
1. Poletti, J. L.,Patient doses from CT in New Zealand and a simple method for estimating effective dose, Brit. J. Radiol., 69:432–6, 1996.
2. Thomson, J. E. M. and Tingey, D. R. C.,Radiation doses from computed tomography in Australia, Australian Radiation Laboratory report ARL/TR123, 1997.
3. Goddard, C. C. and Al-Farsi, A.,Radiation doses from CT in the Sultanate of Oman, Brit. J. Radiol., 72:1073–1077, 1999.
4. Shrimpton, P. C., et al.,Reference doses in computed tomography, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 80(1–3):55–59, 1998.
5. Shrimpton, P. C. and Edyvean, S.,CT scanner dosimetry, Brit. J. Radiol., 71:1–3, 1998.
6. Shrimpton, P. C. and Wall, B. F.,The increasing importance of X-ray computed tomography as a source of medical exposure, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 57:413–5, 1995.
7. Boal, T. J., Hedt J. C. and Einsiedel, P. F.,A survey of patient dose and image quality factors for CT scanners in Victoria, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med., 22(3):103–112, 1999.
8. Jessen, K. A., Shrimpton, P. C., Geleijns, J., Panzer, W. and Tosi, G.,Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography, Appl. Radiat. Isot., 50: 165–172, 1999.
9. Scheck, R. J., et al.,Radiation dose and image quality in spiral computed tomography: multicentre evaluation at six institutions, Brit. J. Radiol., 71:734–744, 1998.
10. Leitz, W., Alexlsson, B. and Szenddro, G.,Computed tomography dose assessment: A practical approach, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 57:377–380, 1995.
11. Tsapaki, V., et al.,Application of European Commission reference dose levels in CT examinations in Crete, Greece, Brit. J. Radiol., 74:836–840, 2001.
12. Crawly, M. T., et al.,A practical approach to the first iteration in the optimisation of radiation dose and image quality in CT: estimates of the collective dose savings achieved, Brit. J. Radiol., 74:607–614, 2001.
13. Edyvean, S., Keat, N., Platten, D. J., Barret, J. F. and Lewis, M. A.,Methods for Comparison of Image Quality and Dose of Computed Tomography Scanners, ImPACT Presentation at the Medical Physics World Congress, Sydney, 2003.
14. Specification and Acceptance Testing of Computed Tomography Scanners, AAPM Report, No. 39; May, 1993.
15. Riederer, S. J., Pelc, N. J. and Chesler, D. A.,The noise power spectrum in computed tomography, Phys. Med. Biol., 23(3):446–454, 1978.
16. Brookes, R. and di-Chiro, G.,Statistical limitations in X-ray reconstructive tomography, Med. Phys., 3(4): 237–240, 1976.
17. The Phantom Laboratory, Catphan Manual, 2001.
18. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography, EUR 16262 EN, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Al-Farsi, A., Michael, G. & Thiele, D. A method for benchmarking CT scanners. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 28, 175 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178712
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03178712