Literature DB >> 22955797

Automated estimation of abdominal effective diameter for body size normalization of CT dose.

Phillip M Cheng1.   

Abstract

Most CT dose data aggregation methods do not currently adjust dose values for patient size. This work proposes a simple heuristic for reliably computing an effective diameter of a patient from an abdominal CT image. Evaluation of this method on 106 patients scanned on Philips Brilliance 64 and Brilliance Big Bore scanners demonstrates close correspondence between computed and manually measured patient effective diameters, with a mean absolute error of 1.0 cm (error range +2.2 to -0.4 cm). This level of correspondence was also demonstrated for 60 patients on Siemens, General Electric, and Toshiba scanners. A calculated effective diameter in the middle slice of an abdominal CT study was found to be a close approximation of the mean calculated effective diameter for the study, with a mean absolute error of approximately 1.0 cm (error range +3.5 to -2.2 cm). Furthermore, the mean absolute error for an adjusted mean volume computed tomography dose index (CTDIvol) using a mid-study calculated effective diameter, versus a mean per-slice adjusted CTDIvol based on the calculated effective diameter of each slice, was 0.59 mGy (error range 1.64 to -3.12 mGy). These results are used to calculate approximate normalized dose length product values in an abdominal CT dose database of 12,506 studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22955797      PMCID: PMC3649058          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9525-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  7 in total

1.  AP diameter shows the strongest correlation with CTDI and DLP in abdominal and chest CT.

Authors:  Francis Zarb; Louise Rainford; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 0.972

2.  Automated extraction of radiation dose information for CT examinations.

Authors:  Tessa S Cook; Stefan Zimmerman; Andrew D A Maidment; Woojin Kim; William W Boonn
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  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

4.  ACR Dose Index Registry.

Authors:  Richard L Morin; Laura P Coombs; Mythreyi Bhargavan Chatfield
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 5.532

5.  Automated extraction of radiation dose information from CT dose report images.

Authors:  Xinhua Li; Da Zhang; Bob Liu
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Patient size measured on CT images as a function of age at a tertiary care children's hospital.

Authors:  Patricia L Kleinman; Keith J Strauss; David Zurakowski; Kevin S Buckley; George A Taylor
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Comparison of different body size parameters for individual dose adaptation in body CT of adults.

Authors:  Jan Menke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 11.105

  7 in total
  7 in total

1.  Automated pediatric abdominal effective diameter measurements versus age-predicted body size for normalization of CT dose.

Authors:  Phillip M Cheng; Linda A Vachon; Vinay A Duddalwar
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Does body mass index outperform body weight as a surrogate parameter in the calculation of size-specific dose estimates in adult body CT?

Authors:  Johannes Boos; Rotem S Lanzman; Philipp Heusch; Joel Aissa; Christoph Schleich; Christoph Thomas; Lino M Sawicki; Gerald Antoch; Patric Kröpil
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Size-specific Dose Estimates for Chest, Abdominal, and Pelvic CT: Effect of Intrapatient Variability in Water-equivalent Diameter.

Authors:  Shuai Leng; Maria Shiung; Xinhui Duan; Lifeng Yu; Yi Zhang; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Patient Vertical Centering and Correlation with Radiation Output in Adult Abdominopelvic CT.

Authors:  Phillip M Cheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Estimating patient dose from x-ray tube output metrics: automated measurement of patient size from CT images enables large-scale size-specific dose estimates.

Authors:  Ichiro Ikuta; Graham I Warden; Katherine P Andriole; Ramin Khorasani; Aaron Sodickson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Evaluation of AAPM Reports 204 and 220: Estimation of effective diameter, water-equivalent diameter, and ellipticity ratios for chest, abdomen, pelvis, and head CT scans.

Authors:  Christiane S Burton; Timothy P Szczykutowicz
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Using body mass index to estimate individualised patient radiation dose in abdominal computed tomography.

Authors:  Siobhan O'Neill; Richard G Kavanagh; Brian W Carey; Niamh Moore; Michael Maher; Owen J O'Connor
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2018-11-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.