Literature DB >> 17019030

Organ and effective doses in newborn patients during helical multislice computed tomography examination.

Robert J Staton1, Choonik Lee, Choonsik Lee, Matt D Williams, David E Hintenlang, Manuel M Arreola, Jonathon L Williams, Wesley E Bolch.   

Abstract

In this study, two computational phantoms of the newborn patient were used to assess individual organ doses and effective doses delivered during head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and torso examinations using the Siemens SOMATOM Sensation 16 helical multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) scanner. The stylized phantom used to model the patient anatomy was the revised ORNL newborn phantom by Han et al (2006 Health Phys.90 337). The tomographic phantom used in the study was that developed by Nipper et al (2002 Phys. Med. Biol. 47 3143) as recently revised by Staton et al (2006 Med. Phys. 33 3283). The stylized model was implemented within the MCNP5 radiation transport code, while the tomographic phantom was incorporated within the EGSnrc code. In both codes, the x-ray source was modelled as a fan beam originating from the focal spot at a fan angle of 52 degrees and a focal-spot-to-axis distance of 57 cm. The helical path of the source was explicitly modelled based on variations in collimator setting (12 mm or 24 mm), detector pitch and scan length. Tube potentials of 80, 100 and 120 kVp were considered in this study. Beam profile data were acquired using radiological film measurements on a 16 cm PMMA phantom, which yielded effective beam widths of 14.7 mm and 26.8 mm for collimator settings of 12 mm and 24 mm, respectively. Values of absolute organ absorbed dose were determined via the use of normalization factors defined as the ratio of the CTDI(100) measured in-phantom and that determined by Monte Carlo simulation of the PMMA phantom and ion chamber. Across various technique factors, effective dose differences between the stylized and tomographic phantoms ranged from +2% to +9% for head exams, -4% to -2% for chest exams, +8% to +24% for abdominal exams, -16% to -12% for pelvic exams and -7% to 0% for chest-abdomen-pelvis (CAP) exams. In many cases, however, relatively close agreement in effective dose was accomplished at the expense of compensating errors in individual organ dose. Per cent differences in organ dose between the stylized and tomographic phantoms at 120 kVp and 12 mm collimator setting ranged from -25% (skin) to +164% (muscle) for head exams, -92% (thyroid) to +98% (ovaries) for chest exams, -144% (uterus) to +112% (ovaries) for abdominal exams, -98% (SI wall) to +20% (thymus) for pelvic exams and -60% (extrathoracic airways) to +13% (ovaries) for CAP exams. Better agreement was seen between the two phantom types for organs entirely within the scan field. In these cases, corresponding per cent differences in organ absorbed dose did not vary more than 17%. For all scans, the effective dose was found to range approximately 1-13 mSv across the scan parameters and scan regions. The largest effective dose occurred for CAP scans at 120 kVp.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17019030     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/20/005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  14 in total

1.  The feasibility of a scanner-independent technique to estimate organ dose from MDCT scans: using CTDIvol to account for differences between scanners.

Authors:  Adam C Turner; Maria Zankl; John J DeMarco; Chris H Cagnon; Di Zhang; Erin Angel; Dianna D Cody; Donna M Stevens; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Current status and new horizons in Monte Carlo simulation of X-ray CT scanners.

Authors:  Habib Zaidi; Mohammad Reza Ay
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2007-07-05       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Organ doses for reference adult male and female undergoing computed tomography estimated by Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Daniel Long; Ryan Fisher; Chris Tien; Steven L Simon; Andre Bouville; Wesley E Bolch
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Monte Carlo simulations of adult and pediatric computed tomography exams: validation studies of organ doses with physical phantoms.

Authors:  Daniel J Long; Choonsik Lee; Christopher Tien; Ryan Fisher; Matthew R Hoerner; David Hintenlang; Wesley E Bolch
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A measurement-based generalized source model for Monte Carlo dose simulations of CT scans.

Authors:  Xin Ming; Yuanming Feng; Ransheng Liu; Chengwen Yang; Li Zhou; Hezheng Zhai; Jun Deng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Patient-specific dose calculations for pediatric CT of the chest, abdomen and pelvis.

Authors:  Susan D Kost; Nicholas D Fraser; Diana E Carver; David R Pickens; Ronald R Price; Marta Hernanz-Schulman; Michael G Stabin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-07-04

7.  Realistic phantoms to characterize dosimetry in pediatric CT.

Authors:  Diana E Carver; Susan D Kost; Nicholas D Fraser; W Paul Segars; David R Pickens; Ronald R Price; Michael G Stabin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-03-10

8.  Patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk estimation in CT: part I. development and validation of a Monte Carlo program.

Authors:  Xiang Li; Ehsan Samei; W Paul Segars; Gregory M Sturgeon; James G Colsher; Greta Toncheva; Terry T Yoshizumi; Donald P Frush
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  The development, validation and application of a multi-detector CT (MDCT) scanner model for assessing organ doses to the pregnant patient and the fetus using Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  J Gu; B Bednarz; P F Caracappa; X G Xu
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Radiation dose to the fetus for pregnant patients undergoing multidetector CT imaging: Monte Carlo simulations estimating fetal dose for a range of gestational age and patient size.

Authors:  Erin Angel; Clinton V Wellnitz; Mitchell M Goodsitt; Nazanin Yaghmai; John J DeMarco; Christopher H Cagnon; James W Sayre; Dianna D Cody; Donna M Stevens; Andrew N Primak; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.