Comprehensive evaluation of broad‐beam transmission of patient supports from three fluoroscopy‐guided interventional systems

摘要

Purpose The purpose of the study was to measure, evaluate, and model the broad‐beam x‐ray transmission of the patient supports from representative modern fluoroscopy‐guided interventional systems, for patient skin dose calculation. Methods Broad‐beam transmission was evaluated by varying incident angle, kVp, added copper (Cu) filter, and x‐ray field size for three fluoroscopy systems: General Electric (GE) Innova 4100 with Omega V table and pad, Siemens Axiom Artis with Siemens tabletop “narrow” (CARD) table and pad, and Siemens Zeego with Trumpf TruSystem 7500 table and pad. Field size was measured on the table using a lead ruler for all setups in this study. Exposure rates were measured in service mode using a calibrated Radcal 10 × 6–60 ion chamber above the patient support at the assumed skin location. Broad‐beam transmission factors were calculated by the ratio of air kerma rates measured with and without a patient support in the beam path. First, angle dependency was investigated on the GE system, with the chamber at isocenter, for angles of 0°, 15°, 30°, and 40°, for a variety of kVp, added Cu filters, and for two field sizes (small and large). Second, the broad‐beam transmission factor at normal incidence was evaluated for all three fluoroscopes by varying kVp, added Cu filter, and field size (small, medium, and large). An analytical equation was created to fit the data as to maximize R 2 and minimize maximum percentage difference across all measurements for each system. Results For all patient supports, broad‐beam transmission factor increased with field size, kVp, and added Cu filtration and decreased with incident angle. Oblique incidence measurements show that the transmission decreased by about 1%, 3%, and 6% for incident angles of 15°, 30°, and 40°, respectively. The broad‐beam transmission factors at 0° for the table and table plus pad ranged from 0.73 to 0.96 and from 0.59 to 0.89, respectively. The GE and Siemens transmission factors were comparable, while the Trumpf transmission factors were the lowest. The data were successfully fitted to a function of angle, field size, kVp, and added Cu filtration using nine parameters, with an average R 2 value of 0.977 and maximum percentage difference of 4.08%. Conclusions This study evaluated the broad‐beam transmission for three representative fluoroscopy systems and their dependency on angle, kVp, added Cu filter, and field size. The comprehensive data provided for patient support transmission will facilitate accurate calculation of peak skin dose (PSD) and may potentially be integrated into real‐time and retrospective dose monitoring with access to Radiation Dose Structured Reports (RDSR) and radiation event data.