Susan D Kost1,2, Nicholas D Fraser3, Diana E Carver4,3, David R Pickens3, Ronald R Price3, Marta Hernanz-Schulman3, Michael G Stabin4,3. 1. Physics & Astronomy Department, Vanderbilt University, 6301 Stevenson Center, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA. susan.d.kost@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. susan.d.kost@vanderbilt.edu. 3. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Physics & Astronomy Department, Vanderbilt University, 6301 Stevenson Center, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organ dose is essential for accurate estimates of patient dose from CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine organ doses from a broad range of pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic chest-abdomen-pelvis CT and investigate how these relate to patient size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a previously validated Monte Carlo simulation model of a Philips Brilliance 64 multi-detector CT scanner (Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) to calculate organ doses for 40 pediatric patients (M:F = 21:19; range 0.6-17 years). Organ volumes and positions were determined from the images using standard segmentation techniques. Non-linear regression was performed to determine the relationship between volume CT dose index (CTDIvol)-normalized organ doses and abdominopelvic diameter. We then compared results with values obtained from independent studies. RESULTS: We found that CTDIvol-normalized organ dose correlated strongly with exponentially decreasing abdominopelvic diameter (R(2) > 0.8 for most organs). A similar relationship was determined for effective dose when normalized by dose-length product (R(2) = 0.95). Our results agreed with previous studies within 12% using similar scan parameters (e.g., bowtie filter size, beam collimation); however results varied up to 25% when compared to studies using different bowtie filters. CONCLUSION: Our study determined that organ doses can be estimated from measurements of patient size, namely body diameter, and CTDIvol prior to CT examination. This information provides an improved method for patient dose estimation.
BACKGROUND: Organ dose is essential for accurate estimates of patient dose from CT. OBJECTIVE: To determine organ doses from a broad range of pediatric patients undergoing diagnostic chest-abdomen-pelvis CT and investigate how these relate to patient size. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a previously validated Monte Carlo simulation model of a Philips Brilliance 64 multi-detector CT scanner (Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) to calculate organ doses for 40 pediatric patients (M:F = 21:19; range 0.6-17 years). Organ volumes and positions were determined from the images using standard segmentation techniques. Non-linear regression was performed to determine the relationship between volume CT dose index (CTDIvol)-normalized organ doses and abdominopelvic diameter. We then compared results with values obtained from independent studies. RESULTS: We found that CTDIvol-normalized organ dose correlated strongly with exponentially decreasing abdominopelvic diameter (R(2) > 0.8 for most organs). A similar relationship was determined for effective dose when normalized by dose-length product (R(2) = 0.95). Our results agreed with previous studies within 12% using similar scan parameters (e.g., bowtie filter size, beam collimation); however results varied up to 25% when compared to studies using different bowtie filters. CONCLUSION: Our study determined that organ doses can be estimated from measurements of patient size, namely body diameter, and CTDIvol prior to CT examination. This information provides an improved method for patient dose estimation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Children; Computed tomography; Effective dose; Monte Carlo; Organ dose; Patient size
Authors: Paul A Yushkevich; Joseph Piven; Heather Cody Hazlett; Rachel Gimpel Smith; Sean Ho; James C Gee; Guido Gerig Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Robert J Staton; Choonik Lee; Choonsik Lee; Matt D Williams; David E Hintenlang; Manuel M Arreola; Jonathon L Williams; Wesley E Bolch Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2006-09-22 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: D E Carver; S D Kost; M J Fernald; K G Lewis; N D Fraser; D R Pickens; R R Price; M G Stabin Journal: Health Phys Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.316
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
Authors: Adriana Fonseca; Caihong Xia; Armando J Lorenzo; Mark Krailo; Thomas A Olson; Farzana Pashankar; Marcio H Malogolowkin; James F Amatruda; Deborah F Billmire; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; A Lindsay Frazier; Furqan Shaikh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Diana E Carver; Susan D Kost; Nicholas D Fraser; W Paul Segars; David R Pickens; Ronald R Price; Michael G Stabin Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-03-10
Authors: Yiming Gao; Brian Quinn; Usman Mahmood; Daniel Long; Yusuf Erdi; Jean St Germain; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; X George Xu; Wesley E Bolch; Lawrence T Dauer Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Markus Kopp; Tobias Loewe; Wolfgang Wuest; Michael Brand; Matthias Wetzl; Wolfram Nitsch; Daniela Schmidt; Michael Beck; Bernhard Schmidt; Michael Uder; Matthias May Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 4.379