PURPOSE: To estimate patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate factors affecting dose and risk, including patient size, patient age, and scanning parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study and waived informed consent. This study was HIPAA compliant. The study included 30 patients (0-16 years old), for whom full-body computer models were recently created from clinical CT data. A validated Monte Carlo program was used to estimate organ dose from eight chest protocols, representing clinically relevant combinations of bow tie filter, collimation, pitch, and tube potential. Organ dose was used to calculate effective dose and risk index (an index of total cancer incidence risk). The dose and risk estimates before and after normalization by volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) or dose-length product (DLP) were correlated with patient size and age. The effect of each scanning parameter was studied. RESULTS: Organ dose normalized by tube current-time product or CTDI(vol) decreased exponentially with increasing average chest diameter. Effective dose normalized by tube current-time product or DLP decreased exponentially with increasing chest diameter. Chest diameter was a stronger predictor of dose than weight and total scan length. Risk index normalized by tube current-time product or DLP decreased exponentially with both chest diameter and age. When normalized by DLP, effective dose and risk index were independent of collimation, pitch, and tube potential (<10% variation). CONCLUSION: The correlations of dose and risk with patient size and age can be used to estimate patient-specific dose and risk. They can further guide the design and optimization of pediatric chest CT protocols. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101900/-/DC1. RSNA, 2011
PURPOSE: To estimate patient-specific radiation dose and cancer risk for pediatric chest computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate factors affecting dose and risk, including patient size, patient age, and scanning parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study and waived informed consent. This study was HIPAA compliant. The study included 30 patients (0-16 years old), for whom full-body computer models were recently created from clinical CT data. A validated Monte Carlo program was used to estimate organ dose from eight chest protocols, representing clinically relevant combinations of bow tie filter, collimation, pitch, and tube potential. Organ dose was used to calculate effective dose and risk index (an index of total cancer incidence risk). The dose and risk estimates before and after normalization by volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) or dose-length product (DLP) were correlated with patient size and age. The effect of each scanning parameter was studied. RESULTS: Organ dose normalized by tube current-time product or CTDI(vol) decreased exponentially with increasing average chest diameter. Effective dose normalized by tube current-time product or DLP decreased exponentially with increasing chest diameter. Chest diameter was a stronger predictor of dose than weight and total scan length. Risk index normalized by tube current-time product or DLP decreased exponentially with both chest diameter and age. When normalized by DLP, effective dose and risk index were independent of collimation, pitch, and tube potential (<10% variation). CONCLUSION: The correlations of dose and risk with patient size and age can be used to estimate patient-specific dose and risk. They can further guide the design and optimization of pediatric chest CT protocols. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11101900/-/DC1. RSNA, 2011
Authors: Marilyn J Siegel; Bernhard Schmidt; David Bradley; Christoph Suess; Charles Hildebolt Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Dianna D Cody; Donna M Moxley; Kerry T Krugh; Jennifer C O'Daniel; Louis K Wagner; Farzin Eftekhari Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: W P Segars; Hannah Norris; Gregory M Sturgeon; Yakun Zhang; Jason Bond; Anum Minhas; Daniel J Tward; J T Ratnanather; M I Miller; D Frush; E Samei Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Harrison H Barrett; Kyle J Myers; Christoph Hoeschen; Matthew A Kupinski; Mark P Little Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: V-M Sundell; M Kortesniemi; T Siiskonen; A Kosunen; S Rosendahl; L Büermann Journal: Radiat Prot Dosimetry Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 0.972