Amir Bahadori1, Diana Miglioretti2, Randell Kruger3, Michael Flynn4, Sheila Weinmann5, Rebecca Smith-Bindman6, Choonsik Lee7. 1. 1 Space Radiation Analysis Group, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. 2. 2 Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Marshfield Clinic and Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI. 4. 4 Department of Radiology and Center for Health Services Research, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI. 5. 5 Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR. 6. 6 Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Obstetrics, and Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 7. 7 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Radiation Epidemiology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Dr, Rockville, MD 20850.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop an automated calculation method to provide organ dose assessment for a large cohort of pediatric and adult patients undergoing CT examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adopted two dose libraries that were previously published: the volume CT dose index-normalized organ dose library and the tube current-exposure time product (100 mAs)-normalized weighted CT dose index library. We developed an algorithm to calculate organ doses using the two dose libraries and the CT parameters available from DICOM data. We calculated organ doses for pediatric (n = 2499) and adult (n = 2043) CT examinations randomly selected from four health care systems in the United States and compared the adult organ doses with the values calculated from the ImPACT calculator. RESULTS: The median brain dose was 20 mGy (pediatric) and 24 mGy (adult), and the brain dose was greater than 40 mGy for 11% (pediatric) and 18% (adult) of the head CT studies. Both the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and ImPACT methods provided similar organ doses (median discrepancy < 20%) for all organs except the organs located close to the scanning boundaries. The visual comparisons of scanning coverage and phantom anatomies revealed that the NCI method, which is based on realistic computational phantoms, provides more accurate organ doses than the ImPACT method. CONCLUSION: The automated organ dose calculation method developed in this study reduces the time needed to calculate doses for a large number of patients. We have successfully used this method for a variety of CT-related studies including retrospective epidemiologic studies and CT dose trend analysis studies.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to develop an automated calculation method to provide organ dose assessment for a large cohort of pediatric and adult patients undergoing CT examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adopted two dose libraries that were previously published: the volume CT dose index-normalized organ dose library and the tube current-exposure time product (100 mAs)-normalized weighted CT dose index library. We developed an algorithm to calculate organ doses using the two dose libraries and the CT parameters available from DICOM data. We calculated organ doses for pediatric (n = 2499) and adult (n = 2043) CT examinations randomly selected from four health care systems in the United States and compared the adult organ doses with the values calculated from the ImPACT calculator. RESULTS: The median brain dose was 20 mGy (pediatric) and 24 mGy (adult), and the brain dose was greater than 40 mGy for 11% (pediatric) and 18% (adult) of the head CT studies. Both the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and ImPACT methods provided similar organ doses (median discrepancy < 20%) for all organs except the organs located close to the scanning boundaries. The visual comparisons of scanning coverage and phantom anatomies revealed that the NCI method, which is based on realistic computational phantoms, provides more accurate organ doses than the ImPACT method. CONCLUSION: The automated organ dose calculation method developed in this study reduces the time needed to calculate doses for a large number of patients. We have successfully used this method for a variety of CT-related studies including retrospective epidemiologic studies and CT dose trend analysis studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT; Monte Carlo simulations; dosimetry; informatics; phantom
Authors: Choonsik Lee; Kwang Pyo Kim; Daniel Long; Ryan Fisher; Chris Tien; Steven L Simon; Andre Bouville; Wesley E Bolch Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Eric Johnson; Choonsik Lee; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Michael Flynn; Robert T Greenlee; Randell L Kruger; Mark C Hornbrook; Douglas Roblin; Leif I Solberg; Nicholas Vanneman; Sheila Weinmann; Andrew E Williams Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Choonsik Lee; Daniel Lodwick; Jorge Hurtado; Deanna Pafundi; Jonathan L Williams; Wesley E Bolch Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: N Journy; J-L Rehel; H Ducou Le Pointe; C Lee; H Brisse; J-F Chateil; S Caer-Lorho; D Laurier; M-O Bernier Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Jérémie Dabin; Eva G Friberg; Johannes Hermen; Tore S Istad; Andreas Jahnen; Lucian Krille; Choonsik Lee; Carlo Maccia; Arvid Nordenskjöld; Hilde M Olerud; Kaddour Rani; Jean-Luc Rehel; Steven L Simon; Lara Struelens; Ausrele Kesminiene Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lienard A Chang; Donald L Miller; Choonsik Lee; Dunstana R Melo; Daphnée Villoing; Vladimir Drozdovitch; Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Sarah J Winters; Michael Labrake; Charles F Myers; Hyeyeun Lim; Cari M Kitahara; Martha S Linet; Steven L Simon Journal: Health Phys Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 1.316
Authors: Susannah Maxwell; Richard Fox; Donald McRobbie; Max Bulsara; Jenny Doust; Peter O'Leary; John Slavotinek; John Stubbs; Rachael Moorin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 3.240