• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.405-411
• /
• 2018

We will provide basic data on the evaluation of patient dose in terms of DECT quality control by comparing the equipment-provided dose with the measured dose according to the configuration method of the X-ray generator by the manufacturer of the dual-energy CT unit. For computed tomography (CT) equipment, Discovery 750HD, Aquilion ONE GENESIS Edition, and Somatom Definition Flash were used. The $CTDI_{vol}$ value was measured by inserting the Unfors Xi ion chamber into a 32 cm PMMA acryl Phantom. The results of estimated $CTDI_{vol}$ DECT and measured $CTDI_{vol}$ showed that the dose difference between DECT 80 + 140 kVp of G company was at least 0.51% and -1.90% max, and measured $CTDI_{vol}$ was slightly lower (p<0.05). The difference of 80 + 140 kVp of S company was the minimum of 5.84% and the maximum of 7.52% (p<0.05). The measured $CTDI_{vol}$ was less than estimated $CTDI_{vol}$. The C company's 80 + 135 kVp showed a difference of at least 7.58% and a maximum of 13.58% (P<0.05), and all of measured $CTDI_{vol}$ was less. The linearity of exposure dose for all DECT equipment was very linearly reflected with $R^2$ being 0.97 or above, and the measured dose of the ionization chamber was less than the predicted dose of the monitor.