André Euler1, Zsolt Szucs-Farkas2, Anna L Falkowski3, Nadine Kawel-Böhm4, Luigia D'Errico3, Sebastién Kopp3, Jens Bremerich3, Tilo Niemann5. 1. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Basel Hospital, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. andre.euler@usb.ch. 2. Institute of Radiology, Hospital Centre of Biel, Biel, Switzerland. 3. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Basel Hospital, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Graubünden, Chur, Switzerland. 5. Institute of Radiology, Cantonal Hospital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Organ-based tube current modulation aims to reduce exposure to radiosensitive organs like the breasts by considering their anatomical location and altering tube current during rotation. Former phantom studies demonstrated a dose reduction of 20-37 %. Our study aimed to estimate the potential of dose reduction with this technique in relation to the actual location of breast tissue in a large clinical cohort. METHODS: A 1-year cohort of chest CTs of females (N=1,263) was retrospectively evaluated. To estimate the relative dose effect, breast location was analysed by measuring the angle range of glandular tissue within the different dose zones. Relative exposure compared with constant tube current was calculated. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon-test were applied. RESULTS: Only 63 % of angle range of glandular breast tissue was found inside the reduced dose zone. The estimated mean relative dose reduction was lower than observed in former phantom studies(16 % vs. 20-37 %) but still significant compared to constant tube current (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although organ-based tube current modulation results in a significant reduction of breast exposure compared to non-modulated irradiation, the technique cannot unfold its full potential, because breast tissue is often located outside the reduced dose zone, resulting in significantly lower dose reduction than expected. KEY POINTS: • OBTCM results in significant dose reduction compared to constant tube current scans. • A substantial portion of glandular tissue lies outside the reduced dose zone. • Potential dose reduction using organ-based tube current modulation may be overestimated.
OBJECTIVES: Organ-based tube current modulation aims to reduce exposure to radiosensitive organs like the breasts by considering their anatomical location and altering tube current during rotation. Former phantom studies demonstrated a dose reduction of 20-37 %. Our study aimed to estimate the potential of dose reduction with this technique in relation to the actual location of breast tissue in a large clinical cohort. METHODS: A 1-year cohort of chest CTs of females (N=1,263) was retrospectively evaluated. To estimate the relative dose effect, breast location was analysed by measuring the angle range of glandular tissue within the different dose zones. Relative exposure compared with constant tube current was calculated. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon-test were applied. RESULTS: Only 63 % of angle range of glandular breast tissue was found inside the reduced dose zone. The estimated mean relative dose reduction was lower than observed in former phantom studies(16 % vs. 20-37 %) but still significant compared to constant tube current (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although organ-based tube current modulation results in a significant reduction of breast exposure compared to non-modulated irradiation, the technique cannot unfold its full potential, because breast tissue is often located outside the reduced dose zone, resulting in significantly lower dose reduction than expected. KEY POINTS: • OBTCM results in significant dose reduction compared to constant tube current scans. • A substantial portion of glandular tissue lies outside the reduced dose zone. • Potential dose reduction using organ-based tube current modulation may be overestimated.
Authors: Jenny K Hoang; Terry T Yoshizumi; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Giao B Nguyen; Greta Toncheva; Andreia R Gafton; James D Eastwood; Carolyn Lowry; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthew P Lungren; Terry T Yoshizumi; Samuel M Brady; Greta Toncheva; Colin Anderson-Evans; Carolyn Lowry; Xiaodong R Zhou; Donald Frush; Lynne M Hurwitz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Dominik Ketelsen; Markus Buchgeister; Michael Fenchel; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas G Flohr; Roland Syha; Christoph Thomas; Ilias Tsiflikas; Claus D Claussen; Martin Heuschmid Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Yiming Gao; Brian Quinn; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Gerald Behr; Usman Mahmood; Daniel Long; X George Xu; Jean St Germain; Lawrence T Dauer Journal: Phys Med Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.685