Literature DB >> 23127050

Effects of protocol and obesity on dose conversion factors in adult body CT.

Xiang Li1, Ehsan Samei, Cameron H Williams, W Paul Segars, Daniel J Tward, Michael I Miller, J Tilak Ratnanather, Erik K Paulson, Donald P Frush.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In computed tomography (CT), organ dose, effective dose, and risk index can be estimated from volume-weighted CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) or dose-length product (DLP) using conversion coefficients. Studies have investigated how these coefficients vary across scanner models, scan parameters, and patient size. However, their variability across CT protocols has not been systematically studied. Furthermore, earlier studies of the effect of patient size have not included obese individuals, which currently represent more than one-third of U.S. adults. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of protocol and obesity on dose and risk conversion coefficients in adult body CT.
METHODS: Whole-body computational phantoms were created from clinical CT images of six adult patients (three males, three females), representing normal-weight patients and patients of three obesity classes. Body CT protocols at our institution were selected and categorized into ten examination categories based on anatomical region examined. A validated Monte Carlo program was used to estimate organ dose. Organ dose estimates were normalized by CTDI(vol) and size-specific dose estimate (SSDE) to obtain organ dose conversion coefficients (denoted as h and h(ss) factors, respectively). Assuming each phantom to be 20, 40, and 60 years old, effective dose and risk index were calculated and normalized by DLP to obtain effective dose and risk index conversion coefficients (denoted as k and q factors, respectively). Coefficient of variation was used to quantify the variability of each conversion coefficient across examination categories. The effect of obesity was assessed by comparing each obese phantom with the normal-weight phantom of the same gender.
RESULTS: For a given organ, the variability of h factor across examination categories that encompassed the entire organ volume was generally within 15%. However, k factor varied more across examination categories (15%-27%). For all three ages, the variability of q factor was small for male (<10%), but large for female phantoms (21%-43%). Relative to the normal-weight phantoms, the reduction in h factor (an average across fully encompassed organs) was 17%-42%, 17%-40%, and 51%-63% for obese-class-I, obese-class-II, and obese-class-III phantoms, respectively. h(ss) factor was not independent of patient diameter and generally decreased with increasing obesity. Relative to the normal-weight phantoms, the reduction in k factor was 12%-40%, 14%-46%, and 44%-59% for obese-class-I, obese-class-II, and obese-class-III phantoms, respectively. The respective reduction in q factor was 11%-36%, 17%-42%, and 48%-59% at 20 years of age and similar at other ages.
CONCLUSIONS: In adult body CT, dose to an organ fully encompassed by the primary radiation beam can be estimated from CTDI(vol) using a protocol-independent conversion coefficient. However, fully encompassed organs only account for 50% ± 19% of k factor and 46% ± 24% of q factor. Dose received by partially encompassed organs is also substantial. To estimate effective dose and risk index from DLP, it is necessary to use conversion coefficients specific to the anatomical region examined. Obesity has a significant effect on dose and risk conversion coefficients, which cannot be predicted using body diameter alone. SSDE-normalized organ dose is not independent of diameter. SSDE itself generally overestimates organ dose for obese patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23127050      PMCID: PMC3482255          DOI: 10.1118/1.4754584

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


  30 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.  Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge.

Authors:  Hedvig Hricak; David J Brenner; S James Adelstein; Donald P Frush; Eric J Hall; Roger W Howell; Cynthia H McCollough; Fred A Mettler; Mark S Pearce; Orhan H Suleiman; James H Thrall; Louis K Wagner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The application of effective dose to medical exposures.

Authors:  Colin J Martin
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2007-10-20       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  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

5.  Automated size-specific CT dose monitoring program: assessing variability in CT dose.

Authors:  Olav Christianson; Xiang Li; Donald Frush; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  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.  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

8.  4D XCAT phantom for multimodality imaging research.

Authors:  W P Segars; G Sturgeon; S Mendonca; Jason Grimes; B M W Tsui
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients.

Authors:  W Huda; J V Atherton; D E Ware; W A Cumming
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Estimating radiation doses from multidetector CT using Monte Carlo simulations: effects of different size voxelized patient models on magnitudes of organ and effective dose.

Authors:  J J DeMarco; C H Cagnon; D D Cody; D M Stevens; C H McCollough; M Zankl; E Angel; M F McNitt-Gray
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-04-17       Impact factor: 3.609

View more
  19 in total

1.  Automatic individualized contrast medium dosage during hepatic computed tomography by using computed tomography dose index volume (CTDI(vol)).

Authors:  Anders Svensson; Jonas Björk; Kerstin Cederlund; Peter Aspelin; Ulf Nyman; Torkel B Brismar
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Task-based measures of image quality and their relation to radiation dose and patient risk.

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

5.  Automated, patient-specific estimation of regional imparted energy and dose from tube current modulated computed tomography exams across 13 protocols.

Authors:  Jeremiah Sanders; Xiaoyu Tian; William Paul Segars; John Boone; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-01-24

6.  Ultra-low-dose periradicular infiltration of the lumbar spine: spot scanning and its potential for further dose reduction by replacing helical planning CT.

Authors:  Fabian Henry Jürgen Elsholtz; Lars-Arne Schaafs; Christoph Erxleben; Bernd Hamm; Stefan Markus Niehues
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Evaluation of Effective Dose from CT Scans for Overweight and Obese Adult Patients Using the VirtualDose Software.

Authors:  Baohui Liang; Yiming Gao; Zhi Chen; X George Xu
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 0.972

8.  Comparison of patient specific dose metrics between chest radiography, tomosynthesis, and CT for adult patients of wide ranging body habitus.

Authors:  Yakun Zhang; Xiang Li; W Paul Segars; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  In vitro dose measurements in a human cadaver with abdomen/pelvis CT scans.

Authors:  Da Zhang; Atul Padole; Xinhua Li; Sarabjeet Singh; Ranish Deedar Ali Khawaja; Diego Lira; Tianyu Liu; Jim Q Shi; Alexi Otrakji; Mannudeep K Kalra; X George Xu; Bob Liu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  A real-time Monte Carlo tool for individualized dose estimations in clinical CT.

Authors:  Shobhit Sharma; Anuj Kapadia; Wanyi Fu; Ehsan Abadi; W Paul Segars; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.