X Lopez-Rendon1, H Bosmans, R Oyen, F Zanca. 1. Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics and Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, box 7003, 3000, Leuven, Belgium, xochitl.lopezrendon@uzleuven.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of including tube current modulation (TCM) versus using the average mAs in estimating organ and effective dose (E) using commercial software. METHOD: Forty adult patients (24 females, 16 males) with normal BMI underwent chest/abdomen computed tomography (CT) performed with TCM at 120 kVp, reference mAs of 110 (chest) and 200 (abdomen). Doses to fully irradiated organs (breasts, lungs, stomach, liver and ovaries) and E were calculated using two versions of a dosimetry software: v.2.0, which uses the average mAs, and v.2.2, which accounts for TCM by implementing a gender-specific mAs profile. Student's t-test was used to assess statistically significant differences between organ doses calculated with the two versions. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was found for E on chest and abdomen CT, with E being lower by 4.2% when TCM is considered. Similarly, organ doses were also significantly lower (p < 0.001): 13.7% for breasts, 7.3% for lungs, 9.1% for the liver and 8.5% for the stomach. Only the dose to the ovaries was higher with TCM (11.5%). CONCLUSION: When TCM is used, for the stylized phantom, the doses to lungs, breasts, stomach and liver decreased while the dose to the ovaries increased. KEY POINTS: • Estimated dose to the ovaries increased with TCM. • Estimated dose to lungs, breasts, stomach and liver decreased with TCM. • A unique but gender-specific mAs profile resulted in a radiation dose shift. • Even for normal size patients there is a variety in mAs profiles.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of including tube current modulation (TCM) versus using the average mAs in estimating organ and effective dose (E) using commercial software. METHOD: Forty adult patients (24 females, 16 males) with normal BMI underwent chest/abdomen computed tomography (CT) performed with TCM at 120 kVp, reference mAs of 110 (chest) and 200 (abdomen). Doses to fully irradiated organs (breasts, lungs, stomach, liver and ovaries) and E were calculated using two versions of a dosimetry software: v.2.0, which uses the average mAs, and v.2.2, which accounts for TCM by implementing a gender-specific mAs profile. Student's t-test was used to assess statistically significant differences between organ doses calculated with the two versions. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was found for E on chest and abdomen CT, with E being lower by 4.2% when TCM is considered. Similarly, organ doses were also significantly lower (p < 0.001): 13.7% for breasts, 7.3% for lungs, 9.1% for the liver and 8.5% for the stomach. Only the dose to the ovaries was higher with TCM (11.5%). CONCLUSION: When TCM is used, for the stylized phantom, the doses to lungs, breasts, stomach and liver decreased while the dose to the ovaries increased. KEY POINTS: • Estimated dose to the ovaries increased with TCM. • Estimated dose to lungs, breasts, stomach and liver decreased with TCM. • A unique but gender-specific mAs profile resulted in a radiation dose shift. • Even for normal size patients there is a variety in mAs profiles.
Authors: Mannudeep K Kalra; Michael M Maher; Thomas L Toth; Ravi S Kamath; Elkan F Halpern; Sanjay Saini Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Frederick J Larke; Randell L Kruger; Christopher H Cagnon; Michael J Flynn; Michael M McNitt-Gray; Xizeng Wu; Phillip F Judy; Dianna D Cody Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ioannis A Tsalafoutas; Athanasios Varsamidis; Stella Thalassinou; Efstathios P Efstathopoulos Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Robin D Munk; Peter C Strohm; Ulrich Saueressig; Joern Zwingmann; Markus Uhl; Norbert P Südkamp; Elmar Kotter; Mathias Langer; Thorsten A Bley Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2009-01-16
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
Authors: Erin Angel; Nazanin Yaghmai; Cecilia Matilda Jude; John J Demarco; Christopher H Cagnon; Jonathan G Goldin; Andrew N Primak; Donna M Stevens; Dianna D Cody; Cynthia H McCollough; Michael F McNitt-Gray Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Mark S Pearce; Jane A Salotti; Mark P Little; Kieran McHugh; Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Nicola L Howe; Cecile M Ronckers; Preetha Rajaraman; Alan W Sir Craft; Louise Parker; Amy Berrington de González Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Doris Leithner; Julian L Wichmann; Scherwin Mahmoudi; Simon S Martin; Moritz H Albrecht; Thomas J Vogl; Jan-Erik Scholtz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Julian L Wichmann; Kristina Hüsers; Moritz H Albrecht; Martin Beeres; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315