Literature DB >> 20443504

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

Adam C Turner1, 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.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Monte Carlo radiation transport techniques have made it possible to accurately estimate the radiation dose to radiosensitive organs in patient models from scans performed with modern multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) scanners. However, there is considerable variation in organ doses across scanners, even when similar acquisition conditions are used. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a technique to estimate organ doses that would be scanner independent. This was accomplished by assessing the ability of CTDIvol measurements to account for differences in MDCT scanners that lead to organ dose differences.
METHODS: Monte Carlo simulations of 64-slice MDCT scanners from each of the four major manufacturers were performed. An adult female patient model from the GSF family of voxelized phantoms was used in which all ICRP Publication 103 radiosensitive organs were identified. A 120 kVp, full-body helical scan with a pitch of 1 was simulated for each scanner using similar scan protocols across scanners. From each simulated scan, the radiation dose to each organ was obtained on a per mA s basis (mGy/mA s). In addition, CTDIvol values were obtained from each scanner for the selected scan parameters. Then, to demonstrate the feasibility of generating organ dose estimates from scanner-independent coefficients, the simulated organ dose values resulting from each scanner were normalized by the CTDIvol value for those acquisition conditions.
RESULTS: CTDIvol values across scanners showed considerable variation as the coefficient of variation (CoV) across scanners was 34.1%. The simulated patient scans also demonstrated considerable differences in organ dose values, which varied by up to a factor of approximately 2 between some of the scanners. The CoV across scanners for the simulated organ doses ranged from 26.7% (for the adrenals) to 37.7% (for the thyroid), with a mean CoV of 31.5% across all organs. However, when organ doses are normalized by CTDIvoI values, the differences across scanners become very small. For the CTDIvol, normalized dose values the CoVs across scanners for different organs ranged from a minimum of 2.4% (for skin tissue) to a maximum of 8.5% (for the adrenals) with a mean of 5.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: This work has revealed that there is considerable variation among modern MDCT scanners in both CTDIvol and organ dose values. Because these variations are similar, CTDIvol can be used as a normalization factor with excellent results. This demonstrates the feasibility of establishing scanner-independent organ dose estimates by using CTDIvol to account for the differences between scanners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20443504      PMCID: PMC2861967          DOI: 10.1118/1.3368596

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  23 in total

Review 1.  Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography.

Authors:  K A Jessen; P C Shrimpton; J Geleijns; W Panzer; G Tosi
Journal:  Appl Radiat Isot       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.513

2.  A new look at CT dose measurement: beyond CTDI.

Authors:  Robert L Dixon
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  A Monte Carlo based method to estimate radiation dose from multidetector CT (MDCT): cylindrical and anthropomorphic phantoms.

Authors:  J J DeMarco; C H Cagnon; D D Cody; D M Stevens; C H McCollough; J O'Daniel; M F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-08-11       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  The effect of z overscanning on patient effective dose from multidetector helical computed tomography examinations.

Authors:  A Tzedakis; J Damilakis; K Perisinakis; J Stratakis; N Gourtsoyiannis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  It is time to retire the computed tomography dose index (CTDI) for CT quality assurance and dose optimization. For the proposition.

Authors:  David J Brenner
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  [CT-expo--a novel program for dose evaluation in CT].

Authors:  G Stamm; H D Nagel
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2002-12

7.  Monte Carlo calculation of radiation dose in CT examinations using phantom and patient tomographic models.

Authors:  M Salvadó; M López; J J Morant; A Calzado
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 0.972

Review 8.  The GSF family of voxel phantoms.

Authors:  Nina Petoussi-Henss; Maria Zanki; Ute Fill; Dieter Regulla
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2002-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Dose to radiosensitive organs during routine chest CT: effects of tube current modulation.

Authors:  Erin Angel; Nazanin Yaghmai; Cecilia Matilda Jude; John J DeMarco; Christopher H Cagnon; Jonathan G Goldin; Cynthia H McCollough; Andrew N Primak; Dianna D Cody; Donna M Stevens; Michael F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Adult female voxel models of different stature and photon conversion coefficients for radiation protection.

Authors:  U A Fill; M Zankl; N Petoussi-Henss; M Siebert; D Regulla
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 1.316

View more
  46 in total

1.  In-patient to isocenter KERMA ratios in CT.

Authors:  Walter Huda; Kent M Ogden; Robert L Lavallee; Marsha L Roskopf; Ernest M Scalzetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Practical dose point-based methods to characterize dose distribution in a stationary elliptical body phantom for a cone-beam C-arm CT system.

Authors:  Jang-Hwan Choi; Dragos Constantin; Arundhuti Ganguly; Erin Girard; Richard L Morin; Robert L Dixon; Rebecca Fahrig
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Estimating peak skin and eye lens dose from neuroperfusion examinations: use of Monte Carlo based simulations and comparisons to CTDIvol, AAPM Report No. 111, and ImPACT dosimetry tool values.

Authors:  Di Zhang; Chris H Cagnon; J Pablo Villablanca; Cynthia H McCollough; Dianna D Cody; Maria Zankl; John J Demarco; Michael F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Pediatric chest and abdominopelvic CT: organ dose estimation based on 42 patient models.

Authors:  Xiaoyu Tian; Xiang Li; W Paul Segars; Erik K Paulson; Donald P Frush; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The impact on CT dose of the variability in tube current modulation technology: a theoretical investigation.

Authors:  Xiang Li; W Paul Segars; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  CT dose index and patient dose: they are not the same thing.

Authors:  Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng; Lifeng Yu; Dianna D Cody; John M Boone; Michael F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) provides a simple method to calculate organ dose for pediatric CT examinations.

Authors:  Bria M Moore; Samuel L Brady; Amy E Mirro; Robert A Kaufman
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Patient-based estimation of organ dose for a population of 58 adult patients across 13 protocol categories.

Authors:  Pooyan Sahbaee; W Paul Segars; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Investigating the CT localizer radiograph: acquisition parameters, patient centring and their combined influence on radiation dose.

Authors:  J W Lambert; S Kumar; J S Chen; Z J Wang; R G Gould; B M Yeh
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Organ dose variability and trends in tomosynthesis and radiography.

Authors:  Jocelyn Hoye; Yakun Zhang; Greeshma Agasthya; Greg Sturgeon; Anuj Kapadia; W Paul Segars; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.