X Lopez-Rendon1, M S Walgraeve2, S Woussen2, A Dedulle3, G Zhang2, H Bosmans3,2, F Zanca3,4. 1. Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, box 7003, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. xochitl.lopezrendon@uzleuven.be. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Imaging and Pathology, Division of Medical Physics & Quality Assessment, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, box 7003, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 4. GE Healthcare, Buc, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare different methods available in the literature for estimating radiation dose to the conceptus (Dconceptus) against a patient-specific Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and a commercial software package (CSP). METHOD: Eight voxel models from abdominopelvic CT exams of pregnant patients were generated. Dconceptus was calculated with an MC framework including patient-specific longitudinal tube current modulation (TCM). For the same patients, dose to the uterus, Duterus, was calculated as an alternative for Dconceptus, with a CSP that uses a standard-size, non-pregnant phantom and a generic TCM curve. The percentage error between Duterus and Dconceptus was studied. Dose to the conceptus and percent error with respect to Dconceptus was also estimated for three methods in the literature. RESULTS: The percentage error ranged from -15.9% to 40.0% when comparing MC to CSP. When comparing the TCM profiles with the generic TCM profile from the CSP, differences were observed due to patient habitus and conceptus position. For the other methods, the percentage error ranged from -30.1% to 13.5% but applicability was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating an accurate Dconceptus requires a patient-specific approach that the CSP investigated cannot provide. Available methods in the literature can provide a better estimation if applicable to patient-specific cases. KEY POINTS: • A patient's internal anatomy affects the dose to the conceptus. • Conceptus position has an influence on its dose estimation. • Patient anatomy and specific TCM must be considered for accurate conceptus dosimetry. • D uterus to a standard-size phantom should not be used as D conceptus .
PURPOSE: To compare different methods available in the literature for estimating radiation dose to the conceptus (Dconceptus) against a patient-specific Monte Carlo (MC) simulation and a commercial software package (CSP). METHOD: Eight voxel models from abdominopelvic CT exams of pregnant patients were generated. Dconceptus was calculated with an MC framework including patient-specific longitudinal tube current modulation (TCM). For the same patients, dose to the uterus, Duterus, was calculated as an alternative for Dconceptus, with a CSP that uses a standard-size, non-pregnant phantom and a generic TCM curve. The percentage error between Duterus and Dconceptus was studied. Dose to the conceptus and percent error with respect to Dconceptus was also estimated for three methods in the literature. RESULTS: The percentage error ranged from -15.9% to 40.0% when comparing MC to CSP. When comparing the TCM profiles with the generic TCM profile from the CSP, differences were observed due to patienthabitus and conceptus position. For the other methods, the percentage error ranged from -30.1% to 13.5% but applicability was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating an accurate Dconceptus requires a patient-specific approach that the CSP investigated cannot provide. Available methods in the literature can provide a better estimation if applicable to patient-specific cases. KEY POINTS: • A patient's internal anatomy affects the dose to the conceptus. • Conceptus position has an influence on its dose estimation. • Patient anatomy and specific TCM must be considered for accurate conceptus dosimetry. • D uterus to a standard-size phantom should not be used as D conceptus .
Entities:
Keywords:
Commercial software package; Dose to the conceptus; Monte Carlo simulations; Pregnancy; Tube current modulation
Authors: Anthony G Gilet; Jared M Dunkin; Thomas J Fernandez; Terry M Button; Nancy E Budorick Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tracy A Jaffe; Terry T Yoshizumi; Greta I Toncheva; Giao Nguyen; Lynne M Hurwitz; Rendon C Nelson Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Elizabeth Lazarus; Carolynn Debenedectis; David North; Patricia K Spencer; William W Mayo-Smith Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leslie C Chatterson; David A Leswick; Derek A Fladeland; Megan M Hunt; Stephen Webster; Hyun Lim Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Tianwu Xie; Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Alexandra Platon; Christoph D Becker; Habib Zaidi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 5.315