Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Evaluation of Kerma Area Product and New Fundamental of Kerma Area Product on Radiography

방사선촬영에서 면적선량 및 새로운 실질면적선량 개념의 비교 평가

  • Choi, Woo Cheol (Department of Radiological Science, Daegu Catholic University) ;
  • Kim, Yongmin (Department of Radiological Science, Daegu Catholic University) ;
  • Kim, Jung Su (Department of Radiologic-Technology, Daegu Health College)
  • 최우철 (대구가톨릭대학교 방사선학과) ;
  • 김용민 (대구가톨릭대학교 방사선학과) ;
  • 김정수 (대구보건대학교 방사선과)
  • Received : 2020.12.21
  • Accepted : 2021.02.23
  • Published : 2021.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Kerma Area Product (KAP) is best indicator of radiation monitoring on radiographic examinations. KAP can be measured differently depending on the X-ray irradiation area, air kerma, souce-skin distance, type of equipment, etc. The major factors are exposure area and the air krema. The KAP currently used only considers the exposure area with X-rays and has a problem that KAP is always excessively overestimated from the dose received by an actual subject. Therefore, in this study, in order to measure the accurate KAP, a new area dose calculation that can be calculated by dividing the area where the actual X-ray is irradiated is presented, and the KAP is the real area. We compared and analyzed how much it was overestimated compared to the dose. The Skull AP projection and seven other projection were compared and analyzed, and the KAP was overestimated in each test by 52% to 60%. In this way, the effective KAP (EKAP) calculation developed through this study should be utilized to prevent extra calculation of the existing KAP, and only the accurate patient subject area should be calculated to derive the accurate area dose value. EKAP is helpful for control the patient's exposure dose more finely, and it is useful for the quality control of medical radiation exposure.

Keywords

References

  1. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Assessment of Radiation Exposure of Korean Population by Medical Radiation. 2017. Available from: https://www.prism.go.kr//homepage/entire/retrieveEntireDetail.do?research_id=1351000-201700153
  2. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. 2012 Guideline on patient dose suggestion of general radiology. 2012. Available from: https://nifds.go.kr/brd/m_15/view.do?seq=5365&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&multi_itm_seq=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=88
  3. ICRP. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21 (1-3). 1991. Available from: https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%2060
  4. IEC. "IEC 60601-1-3", Medical electrical equipment-Part 1-3: General requirements forbasic safety and essential performance-Collateral Standard: Radiation protection in diagnostic X-ray equipment. 2013. Available from: https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/2591
  5. Lin PJP, Schueler BA, Balter S, Strauss KJ, Wunderle KA, La France MT, et al. Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: A report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190. Medical Physics. 2015;42(12):6815-6829. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4934831
  6. Huda W. Time for unification of CT dosimetry with radiography and fluoroscopy. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2008;128:129-132. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncm431
  7. Le Heron JC. Estimation of effective dose to the patient during medical x-ray examinations from measurements of the dose-area product. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 1992;37(11):2117. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/37/11/008
  8. Huda W. Kerma-area product in diagnostic radiology. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2014;203(6): 565-569.
  9. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Standard imaging technique in radiological examination(General Radiography). Radiation Safety Management Series No. 38. 2014. Available from: https://mfds.go.kr/brd/m_210/view.do?seq=12408&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&multi_itm_seq=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=86
  10. Petoussi-Henss H, Panzer W, Zankl M, Drexler G. Dose-area product and body doses. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 1995;57(1-4):363-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/57.1-4.363
  11. Jung JE, Won DY, Jung HM, Kwon DC. Calibration Examination of Dose Area Product Meters using X-ray. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. 2017;11(1):37-42. https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2017.11.1.37
  12. Kim JS, Kim SH, Jeon MC, Ju WH, Jeong MG, et al. Development of Indirect Dosimetry by Calculation Method in the Diagnostic X-ray Equipment. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2018;41(6):587-594. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2018.41.6.587
  13. Son JH. Comparison of Dose Measurement of Glass Dose Meter, Semiconductor Dose Meter, and Area Dose Meter in Diagnostic X-ray Energy. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2019; 42(6):483-489. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2019.42.6.483
  14. Choi JH, Kang GJ, Chang SG. Comparison on the dosimetry of TLD and PLD by dose area product. Journal of Korea Contents Association. 2012;3:244-50. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2012.12.03.244
  15. Yoon Y, Kim H, Park M, Kim J, Seo D, et al. Monte Carlo simulation-based feasibility study of a dose-area product meter built into a collimator for diagnostic X-ray. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2014;162(3):421-426. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/nct339